Flexible Learning and Human Resource Development: Putting Theory to Work

Flexible Learning, Human Resource and Organisational Development

Recent challenges facing higher, tertiary and professional education and work, such as the impact of globalisation and the emergence of new technologies, have called for a radical reconceptualisation of the teaching–learning nexus. This book addresses contemporary contexts of flexible learning and its practices, and provides insights about directions which education and training providers may be required to follow in order to implement flexible learning in a variety of settings. Key issues and debates include: • • • • •

the social and economic dimensions of flexible learning and delivery; the implications of globalisation and internationalisation for higher education; flexible learning, knowledge and power; institutional strategies for implementing flexible learning and delivery; practising flexible learning through media and new technologies.

By focusing on practical, theoretical and critical perspectives, contributors from the UK, Canada and Australia present a state-ofthe-art picture of the conceptualisation of flexible learning and the implications of flexible delivery systems for individuals, educational organisations and industries interested in workplace-based learning. Viktor Jakupec is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. He has extensive experience in developing flexible, open and distance education policies, strategies and programmes. John Garrick is Academic Manager (Work-based Learning) in the Faculty of Business at the same institution. He is author of Informal Learning in the Workplace (1998) also published by Routledge, and co-editor of several other books examining learning at work.

Flexible Learning, Human Resource and Organisational Development Putting theory to work

Edited by Viktor Jakupec and John Garrick

London and New York

First published 2000 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © 2000 Selection and editorial matter: Viktor Jakupec and John Garrick. Individual chapters: their contributors All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Flexible learning, human resource and organisational development: putting theory to work/ [edited by] Viktor Jakupec and John Garrick. p. cm. 1. Open training. 2. Continuing education. 3. Occupational training. 4. Employees–training of. I. Jakupec, Viktor, 1945–. II Garrick, John LC5800.F54 1999 374–dc21 99–24178 CIP ISBN 0-203-99181-8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0–415–20060–1 (pbk) ISBN 0–415–20059–8 (hbk)

Contents

Contributors Preface 1 Flexible learning, work and human resource development

ix xiii 1

JOHN GARRICK AND VIKTOR JAKUPEC

PART I

Setting the scene for flexible learning 2 A global society needs flexible learning

9 11

MARGARET HAUGHEY

3 Digital technology and university sovereignty: compatibility or collision course?

30

R O S S PA U L

4 Exploring the concept of flexibility

47

TED NUNAN

5 The politics of flexible learning: opportunities and challenges in a globalised world VIKTOR JAKUPEC

67

vi Contents PART II

Putting the theory to work 6 Reconfiguring institutional strategies for flexible learning and delivery

85

87

JOHN BOTTOMLEY

7 Managing institutional change and the pressures for new approaches to teaching and learning

107

BRUCE KING

8 Forging policies in flexible learning

130

R I C H A R D E D WA R D S A N D A L A N TA I T

PART III

The implications of flexible learning for practice 9 ‘Human’ resource management, ‘flexible’ learning and difference: a feminist exploration

147

149

L E O N I E R O WA N

10 Pedagogical implications of flexible learning

175

M A RY T H O R P E

11 Using media and technologies for flexible workplace learning

193

D AV I D H AW K R I D G E

12 Flexible delivery and flexible learning: developing flexible learners?

211

T E R RY E VA N S

13 Flexible learning, postmodernity and the contemporary workplace ROBIN USHER

225

Contents vii 14 Flexible learning, work and the management of ‘intellectual’ capital

239

JOHN GARRICK

PART IV

Conclusion 15 Flexible learning and the construction of ‘working knowledge’

257

259

JOHN GARRICK AND VIKTOR JAKUPEC

Index

268

Contributors

John Bottomley is Director of Flexible Learning at Deakin University, responsible for the planning, coordination and management of flexible learning, educational technology and strategic planning. He has been involved in various capacities in distance education and flexible and open learning for over twenty years both in Canada and Australia. He has been responsible for both academic programme management and the management of materials development using a wide variety of media in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In 1993 he was awarded an Open Learning Australia Quality Enhancement grant and he was a principle researcher on the DEET-funded Electronic Facilities Network project. Richard Edwards is Senior Lecturer in Education at the Open University, UK. He is involved in producing distance learning courses for practitioners in post-compulsory education and training and researching in the area of lifelong learning. He is also currently editor of Studies in the Education of Adults. He publishes regularly in the areas of adult education, open and distance learning, and guidance and counselling. His most recent book, Changing Places? Flexibility, Lifelong Learning and a Learning Society, was published in 1997 by Routledge. Terry Evans is Director of Research in the Faculty of Education at Deakin University, where he also teaches and supervises postgraduate students. His recent research is in the fields of open, flexible and distance education, including work on professional and vocational education and training, internationalisation, new educational technologies and postgraduate pedagogy. He is the author of Understanding Learners in Open and Distance Education (London,

x Contributors Kogan Page, 1994) and the co-editor of nine books including Opening Education: Policies and Practices from Open and Distance Education (with D. Nation, London, Routledge, 1996) and Shifting Borders: Globalisation, Localisation and Open and Distance Education (with L. Rowan and L. Bartlett, Geelong, Deakin University Press, 1997). John Garrick is currently Academic Manager (Work-based Learning) in the Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney. He has worked recently as Senior Research Fellow in the Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training and as Programme Director in Human Resource Development at UTS. He is author of Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human Resource Development (Routledge, 1998) and co-editor of several other books examining learning at work. Margaret Haughey as Professor in Educational Policy Studies at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada is a practitioner and writer about distance learning in the K-12 (kindergarten to year 12) and post-secondary sectors. She has contributed chapters to several books and her most recent publication, Networked Learning: The Pedagogy of the Internet (McGraw-Hill/Chenèliere, 1998), was written with Terry Anderson. She is also the editor of the Canadian Association’s Journal of Distance Education. David Hawkridge has been Professor of Applied Educational Sciences in the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University of the United Kingdom since 1970. He has advised on distance learning in many countries and on computer applications in industrial and commercial training. He is the 1997–99 MCI Eminent Scholar in Distance Learning at Florida State University, USA. Viktor Jakupec is Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia and formerly Director of Open and Distance Education at Deakin University. He has extensive experience in developing graduate programmes in open, distance and flexible learning. His research interests are in the politics of distance, flexible and open learning. He is the author of Das Fernstudium in Australien (Deakin University Press, Geelong 1994). He is the co-editor (with T. Evans and D. Thompson) of Research in Distance Education 4 (Deakin University Press, Geelong, 1997) and has published widely in the field of open, flexible and distance education.

Contributors xi Bruce King is Director of the Flexible Learning Centre at the University of South Australia and an Associate Professor in Distance Education. His recent background includes two years as Director of Southern Sydney Institute of Technical and Further Education and for one year he was CEO of Access Australia Cooperative Multimedia Centre. Since his return to the University in late 1997, he fostered the introduction of an online environment for teaching and learning, UniSAnet, and has been significantly involved in projects relating to graduate attributes with colleagues from the five Australian Technology Network Universities. Ted Nunan is Associate Professor in Distance Education in the Flexible Learning Centre of the University of South Australia. He is involved in research, policy studies and professional development in distance education and flexible learning and delivery approaches. He has published extensively on quality and standards in distance education, information technologies and policy development, theoretical issues in distance education and flexible learning and is a contributor to the book Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, edited by Desmond Keegan (Routledge, 1993). Ross Paul is President of the University of Windsor in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, having previously served as President of Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario and as Vice-President Academic at Alberta’s Athabasca University. He is President of World University Service Canada; he was previously founding President of CREAD, the pan-American distance education consortium and Vice-President for North America of the International Council for Distance Education. The author of the book Open Learning and Open Management (Kogan Page, London, 1990), he is a regular contributor to journals and books on the management of technology and open learning. Leonie Rowan is Senior Lecturer in Communication, Cultural and Gender Studies within the Faculty of Education and Creative Arts at Central Queensland University. Her research and teaching is focused on issues of difference and disadvantage and the use of feminist theory to analyse various cultural sites. She is currently working on projects associated with cultural transformation, and disadvantage and literacy. She is the coordinator of the Access and Equity Strand of the Research Centre for Open and Distance

xii Contributors Learning at CQU and co-editor of the new online journal for open and distance educators called Re-Open. Alan Tait is a Staff Tutor in the School of Education at the Open University, UK, managing tutors and student support systems, writing courses and undertaking research. He edited the journal Open Learning from 1989 to 1998, and has published widely in the field of open learning and post-secondary education. He has co-directed the Cambridge International Conference on Open and Distance Learning over many years and has worked in a range of countries North and South. Mary Thorpe is Director of the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University, UK. Since joining the University in 1975, her work has focused on evaluating course materials, tuition, counselling, and authored course materials in Third World Studies, adult learning and in open and distance learning. As Director of the Institute, she leads a centre of international excellence for the teaching, research, evaluation and development of educational technology in the service of student learning. Her publications include Evaluating Open and Distance Learning (Longman, 1993), Open Learning in the Mainstream (Longman, 1994) and Culture and Processes of Adult Learning (Routledge, 1993). Robin Usher is Professor of Education and Director of Research and Consultancy in the Faculty of Education, Language and Community Services at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. He is co-author of Postmodernism and Education (Routledge, 1994) and Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge (Routledge, 1997). He has worked in both the UK and Australia and has published extensively on education and contemporary culture.

Preface

When I began the first of my four years as Vice-Chancellor of Australia’s Deakin University, in 1992, it had acquired over two decades an internationally acknowledged reputation for ‘distance education’, based primarily upon off-campus teaching, using highquality print-based learning materials backed up by exceptional access to an appropriate library. Within a year, I had made an executive decision to change the university’s mode of representing its distinctiveness, from ‘distance education’ (or ‘open learning’ which was emerging as an alternative term) to ‘flexible delivery’ and ‘flexible learning’. For some members of the wider community, the change was thought to be no more than a semantic quibble or a marketing ploy. Within the university, it was seen as the adoption of a discourse more appropriate to dealing with the fundamental changes already discernible within certain sectors of higher education as well as in human resource development and in the world of work. A subsequent decision later in 1992, to establish a private arm of the university, Deakin Australia, dedicated to the development and delivery of flexible learning materials and programmes to large corporations and professional associations, guaranteed a close and complex link between higher education and human resource development and immersed my Deakin colleagues and me in a continuing discussion of which the basic discourse itself was evolving and changing with often breathtaking speed. What Viktor Jakupec (then a colleague at Deakin) and John Garrick and their twelve colleagues from Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada address in the following fifteen chapters is one of the more complex and significant consequences of globalisation: the nature and role(s) of the relationship between flexible learning and the world of work not only insofar as economic outcomes are concerned, but also relating to the social, ethical,

xiv John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec pedagogic and epistemological consequences of their multifaceted interactions. Jakupec, Garrick and their colleagues, eschewing the usual approach of compiling a manual or primer for human resource managers wanting quick answers to complex questions – a sort of ‘how to’ text – offer instead a significant and original contribution to the critical debate about the nature and implications of flexible learning. Significantly, each of the contributors to this book is well grounded in both practice and theory and, as a consequence, is able to transcend the naïveté of much of the present debate. We have had enough of such simplistic and Panglossian assertions as those that claim that the new information and communications technologies will, at one stroke, render redundant all traditional pedagogic modes and save governments and corporations vast sums of money. That is not to imply that Jakupec, Garrick et al. fail to address such issues as human capital theory, the ways in which employers value employees for their capacity to apply knowledge, or those changes occasioned by the accelerating growth and rate of change of knowledge as well as similar (and sometimes consequential) changes in the nature of work itself. Rather, their approaches are consistently critical, even sceptical, shaped by a clear intention not to limit their inquiries by pursuing any single, unambiguous and uniformly applicable outcome or solution. Of course, this should not be taken to imply that all ideas, theories or actions are deemed by them to be equally valid or defensible; indeed, there is a pervasive tough-mindedness in each of the contributions that gives short shrift to some of the prevailing clichés that characterise so many contemporary, uncritical discussions of flexible delivery. In the end, what Flexible Learning, Human Resource and Organisational Development: Putting Theory to Work opens to critical scrutiny is not simply a set of propositions relating to the interactions between the new information and communication technologies and the ways in which human resource managers may harness them in order to enhance the value of the intellectual capital represented by employees (although it does examine this), but rather those wider, more elusive and occasionally rebarbative questions concerning the nature of knowledge and its applications, the answers to which will shape the nature of the future. Jakupec, Garrick and their fellow authors seek to locate the study of education in the context of globalisation and through their analyses of flexible delivery to establish the necessity (and in many ways the centrality) of this move to future

Flexible learning and work xv discussions of the relationships between knowledge, learning and work itself. John Hay Vice-Chancellor, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 1999

1

Flexible learning, work and human resource development John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec

In the information age, flexible learning has become a central feature of national education policies around the globe. In the era of ‘knowledge workers’ and workplace reforms, the importance of flexible approaches to learning cannot be overestimated. The adjustments to the workplace, working in teams, developing flexibility and mobility are all part of the melange of skills, knowledge and attitudes now required at work. Workplace reforms and subsequent demands on the labour force are aspects of powerful discourses that are fuelling the demand for flexible approaches to learning. Flexible learning is itself therefore connected to workplace and economic discourses. From the perspective of many employers, the ultimate value to the organisation of an employee is their ability to apply their knowledge. Productivity in firms depends not only on the aggregate capabilities of individuals, but on the development of effective interaction patterns and team work (Bowman 1995: 69). Hopes that flexible learning will service the new interaction patterns and work teams are held not only at enterprise level, but are increasingly reflected at national and transnational policy levels. The then European Commissioner for Science, Research, Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth, Edith Cresson, recently stated that due to changes in the socio-economic, demographic and technological environment, and the ever increasing rate at which skills become obsolete in this process, the improvement of lifelong learning is of growing concern. Related policies aim at reducing the negative impacts of unemployment by strengthening open distance learning and at promoting continuing vocational training in order to maintain both personal self-fulfilment and economic competitiveness (Tessaring 1998: 4). This book is one of the first to examine critically flexible learning at work and to expand on its implications for human resource

2 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec development. It brings together ideas about flexible learning and the realities of workplace demands. Our objective is to generate discussion and an access point to the ideas of flexible learning by presenting chapters from leading researchers and practitioners who have directly engaged with the various approaches to flexible learning – including work-based learning. The insights provided in this book show that there are many ways of viewing flexible learning and the practical implications for what can be done in workplaces are immense. The idea that employees are able to learn everything that is required in contemporary work through mechanistic ‘training’ or picked up from experienced ‘mentors’ or peers is no longer tenable. Both workplace managers and educators increasingly have to find new ways of communicating about and implementing a range of learning strategies. The aim of this book is to provide a starting point for examining what some of these new ways might be. Indeed, ‘learning’ and ‘work’ are merging in unprecedented ways.

Flexible learning in work contexts This book focuses on what we know about flexible learning and how various approaches might be used in work contexts. It is also about comprehending the multifaceted dimensions of flexible learning including the culture changes it can require at work. It explores these features in ways that are practical and of immediate relevance to human resource development (HRD) practitioners, flexible researchers and education and training policy-makers alike. Indeed, our aim is to generate discussion and critique directions for developing flexible approaches to learning in and through work, but we do not want to offer prescriptions as to where flexible learning ‘ought to go’. We do not promote a how-to-do-it approach because flexible learning is too important and complex an activity to do this. Rather, this book delivers an access point for those who want to engage with flexible learning in work contexts. It is directed towards practitioners, researchers and scholars who want to know about what flexible learning is and what it might offer organisations that want to transform themselves through emphasising a learning dimension. As such it is not a survey of flexible learning methods or techniques. It is a set of essays which can be read as a linear narrative. The book has a structure and pattern that moves towards some conclusions, but it also encompasses contradictions and its own subversions. Each contributor has her or his way of seeing things. We all operate from certain philosophical perspectives and these are intended to inform rather than confirm particular standpoints.

Flexible learning and work 3 So, what is flexible learning? Flexible learning is a complex concept and is difficult to define. Neither individuals nor organisations have yet been able to define this term from any one specific vantage point. There is no unifying and generally accepted definition. Any attempt at a definition of flexible learning would use the language and notion of ‘possibility’ in learning. It is therefore not surprising that flexible learning has been defined with many different political, theoretical, practical, technical and pedagogical agendas in mind (Jakupec 1997: 95). Whether in the field of higher education, tertiary training and HRD, or workplace learning, ‘flexible learning’ has created some ambiguity amongst senior managers, administrators, academics, teachers, trainers and HRD practitioners. However, if one surveys the practices of flexible learning, there is one aspect that recurs in the many definitions: flexible learning is a purposeful action undertaken by higher education, tertiary training and HRD organisations in order to meet new, and often economic, challenges. Flexible learning is seen by education and training institutions and HRD organisations as a vehicle for addressing current economic, social, political, technological and cultural issues caused by the forces of globalisation. That is, globalisation has made it imperative for education and training organisations, and private and public enterprise, to develop more flexible approaches to learning. This includes new approaches to course planning, structures, delivery methods and access to education, training and staff development. The challenges that have brought about the need for change in the operating contexts of organisations are manifold. The most obvious and general ones are as follows: first, the education and training sectors and companies are increasingly operating in competitive market-driven environments. Second, there is a greater expectation held by individuals and organisations of access to new developments in information and computer technologies (ICTs). Such developments are often held as offering (whether correctly or not) enhanced learning, education, training and staff development in more accessible, compressed time and space. Third, there is a need for individuals to adjust to changes in the workplace and in learning practices. Four, workplace reforms are occurring constantly with the aims of capitalising on improvements in work organisation and new technologies. Fifth, education and industry are increasingly globalised, and overseas institutions and industries are aggressively entering national markets.

4 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec This interwoven set of challenges leads to demands for access to and participation in continuous and lifelong – professionally/occupationally relevant – learning. Taking each of the above aspects into consideration, flexible learning will be interpreted differently according to different and changing needs. Individual education and training institutions (both private and public), and business organisations and enterprises, will position themselves differently at different times. Our point here is that any definitions of ‘flexible learning’ can be expected to build on the distinct identity of individual institutions, organisations or companies.

Putting flexible learning theory to work – why now? Arguably the most powerful discourse on learning at this point in our history is one that holds that ‘a well educated and well trained population is important for the social and economic well-being of countries’ (OECD 1997: 33). Within this discourse educational attainment – and by extension, labour-force qualifications – are seen as important factors in determining economic outcomes and the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole. As the OECD points out, with the increasing skill requirements of jobs in today’s economies: persons with low levels of educational attainment may find themselves at a distinct disadvantage in the labour market … and of key interest is the flexibility with which education and training systems have adapted to changes in labour market and socio-economic conditions. (OECD 1997: 34) Underlying this discourse is an emphasis on human resource development which, in turn, is indebted to human capital theory. This theory rests on two key assumptions: the first is that there is a direct relationship between the formation of the type of human capital needed in the economy and the learning that can be provided through education and training systems; the second assumption is that firms and enterprises are capable of taking advantage of the greater productive capacities of highly trained and educated employees. Querying the degree to which either of these assumptions is valid is not the point here. Rather it is our intention to examine the learning possibilities for HRD found in flexible approaches to education and training – within and against work contexts shaped by influential, economically driven discourses of learning.

Flexible learning and work 5 It is clear to us that many nations are now actively supporting ‘flexible’ solutions to the requirements of capitalist enterprise. For instance, OECD countries have initiated major change at a systems level in their vocational education and training sectors as a strategy for increasing international competitiveness (Tessaring 1998). The 1998 CEDEFOP report on ‘training for a changing society’ makes the point that ‘due to the rapid changes in job requirements and to occupational mobility, initial training is expected to prepare people less and less for their entire working lives’ (Tessaring 1998: 18). Against this backdrop, the growing importance of flexible approaches to learning, particularly for continuing vocational training, is undeniable. Increasingly we find demands for flexible specialists who possess high level communication skills and can cross a range of professional and disciplinary boundaries. Put simply, as society becomes more complex so too do the requirements of professional labour and thus the growing demands for flexible learning. Work has become more fragmented and more subject to processes of unpredictable change. A part of this process is the breaking-down and blurring of boundaries, sometimes referred to as ‘de-differentiation’. Distinctions between life and work, learning and production, community and enterprise are becoming less firm. Shifting boundaries, changing values and purposes of work and learning affect the physical, emotional and cognitive demands on workers at all levels. What is now required are abilities to put knowledge and expertise to use in unfamiliar circumstances and flexible learning offers rich and varied possibilities in this terrain. Indeed, increased flexibility is required not only in relation to learning but also of labour and capital. We argue that in part these changes are tied to globalisation, particularly as market mechanisms become more integrated. In this integration, flexibility of labour and capital is, of course, closely interconnected, but it would be unfair to see flexible learning as simply an off-shoot of this connection. One thing that the contributors make clear in this book is that flexible learning is far more than simply a child of high capital. It has important social and cultural dimensions in addition to its economic underpinnings. In the climate of spiralling economic competitiveness, flexible learning can, of course, be viewed as being intimately connected with productivity and the operation of contemporary enterprises. However, as we have pointed out previously, flexible learning operates at many levels and in more diverse ways than we have known. Universities have been slow to respond to the connections between flexible learning and work-based learning but are now placing the needs of learning in

6 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec organisations as a priority. Courses are increasingly required to have well-developed employment components with ensuing implications for what is regarded as ‘legitimate’ or valid knowledge. As flexible learning approaches and technologies become more connected to workplaces, it becomes even more important to examine what flexible learning encompasses and what it is actually doing.

Flexible learning/work-based learning: crossing the borders Much of what has been written to date has focused either on proposals for new types of ‘learning organisations’ or how-to-do-it books that focus on distance learning and delivery methods. We are concerned about the striking absence of critical literature about learning in the context of contemporary approaches to flexible learning. For the most part, the shaping of our understandings of the topic has been left to literature which glosses over key issues. In the contexts of HRD and HRM literature, this book is a breakthrough in that it offers an in-depth examination of key issues. We see an opportunity to address the ways in which flexible learning has been conceptualised, the processes of contemporary society that shape this form of learning, and what flexible delivery can mean for HRD managers, practitioners and academics interested in work-based learning. We have thus sought contributions that address the connections between the social and institutional processes of flexible learning, and how one can learn in contemporary organisations. There is a substantial amount of literature on flexible learning within information and communication technologies, business management, higher education, vocational training, policy studies, psychology and work sociology. Each discipline has its own interests and concerns, and it is outside the scope of this book to address them all. We do, however, recognise that flexible learning is multidisciplinary and multilayered. The decision we have made is to foreground the learning and to view the workplace (and the many dimensions that come with workplaces) as important contextual features that shape what flexible learning is and does. Having made this decision we sought contributions from practising educators who have practical experience in working with the approaches they write about. Each draws on ideas about flexible learning that extend what is already known about the topic. The choice of what material to include was not always easy. The changing contexts of work, the dazzling array of new technologies

Flexible learning and work 7 and the changing purposes of learning needed to be included. But a key decision was to give the book a strong focus on the practical and contextual influences on flexible learning. The significance of organisational cultures including the influences of management, power and politics cannot be underestimated when one considers flexible learning systems. Consequently, we have emphasised these influences, including the technological aspects of flexible learning. The emphasis of this book is more on the implications of flexible learning in the context of work and what these might mean for managers and human resource developers. Perspectives on flexible learning that focus on ‘supporting the learning’ from a pedagogical perspective of openness and distance however have been recast within a framework of flexibility. The main themes that emerge from the contributions to this book focus on the political and economic influences that lead to the rapid development of flexible learning and flexible delivery in universities and workplaces. Discussion of globalisation, information and computer technologies, and the management of ‘intellectual’ capital, indicates that these are very powerful underpinning influences on the development of flexible learning. All these concepts are as problematic as the concept of flexible learning itself. It was thus necessary to position flexible learning in relation to higher education, tertiary training, HRD (and the work-based learning connections between these) within local and specific contexts. These contexts range from conceptualising flexible learning itself, to discussions from a variety of perspectives of the ‘hidden curriculum’ of flexible learning in the workplace, to a postmodern examination of what it might mean for employees to be ‘learning flexibility’. The implementation of flexible learning is canvassed by a number of contributors. They discuss their first-hand experiences in both the management of organisational change and the pedagogical changes required to develop flexible learning. This includes the important issue of gender and how to make flexible learning ‘genuinely’ more flexible and human resource development more humane in the workplace. In this book we try to address a number of questions. In Part I we ask, what does flexible learning mean? With this question, Haughey (Chapter Two), Paul (Chapter Three), Nunan (Chapter Four) and Jakupec (Chapter Five) set the scene, pointing out the main features of flexible learning in the current global economic, industrial, social and political contexts. The next question is, how is flexible learning being implemented? In Part II, Bottomley (Chapter Six), King (Chapter Seven), Edwards and Tait (Chapter

8 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec Eight) and Rowan (Chapter Nine) explore institutional strategies, cultural changes in organisations as they relate to examples of flexible learning and policy changes. Rowan in particular examines how the policy changes relate to equity, access and participation in flexible learning. Our last set of questions relate to practices of flexible learning. Part III, which includes Thorpe (Chapter Ten), Hawkridge (Chapter Eleven), Evans (Chapter Twelve), Usher (Chapter Thirteen) and Garrick (Chapter Fourteen), focuses on some of the most critical pedagogical implications of putting flexible learning to work. These authors make it clear that the uses of media and technologies, the promotion of flexible learners and work as ‘learning environments’ present an array of challenges, dilemmas and tensions for the future. We conclude our discussion in Chapter Fifteen by briefly examining the contested nature of computerised work, ‘working knowledge’, the demands for ‘knowledge workers’ and where these forces seem to be heading. It appears to us that Lyotard (1984) was quite accurate when he foresaw that the old notion – that knowledge and pedagogy are inextricably linked – was being replaced by a new view of knowledge as a commodity. We wonder whether flexible and work-based learning can offer more than this. We therefore speculate on what directions flexible learning, and human resource and organisational development might take in the future, without, of course, concluding the discussion on how we might put the theories of flexible learning to work.

References Bowman, M. (1995) ‘On-the-job training’, in M. Carnoy (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Economics of Education, Oxford: Pergamon. Jakupec, V. (1997) ‘Guest editorial’, Studies in Continuing Education, 19, 2: 95–99. Lyotard, J-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester: Manchester University Press. OECD (1997) Education at a Glance: Indicators 1997, Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Tessaring, M. (1998) Training for a Changing Society. A report on curent vocational education and training in Europe, Thessalonika: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP).

Part I

Setting the scene for flexible learning

2

A global society needs flexible learning Margaret Haughey

The general thesis of this chapter is that the convergence of many trends in today’s society require a different response to education provision – flexible learning. The chapter will discuss these trends, loosely grouped under the term ‘globalisation’, and consider their influence on tertiary and workplace education. It has become fashionable to attribute any societal or economic change to the influence of globalisation. Doug Kellner (1998: 1), an American academic and social theorist, put it succinctly: ‘globalisation is the buzz word of the decade’. Government documents, the local newspapers, business magazines and the television media have all used the term globalisation. It is a term that gets used so widely it is often not clearly defined. It is not hard to realise that in such circumstances it is being used as a metaphor or code word for many different issues and problems, e.g., from the ‘inevitable and necessary’ march of economic progress to the negative imposition of American cultural homogeneity on other societies. Once, writing about global trends would have meant writing about how things were ‘out there’ and deciding how they would affect us ‘at home’; but now the lines between ‘out there’ and ‘at home’ have blurred. We are having to deal with a world which we don’t fully comprehend, where things seem to happen at a frightening speed and one which seems to be coalescing and disintegrating at the same time. How might we prepare ourselves to meet this future which simultaneously is already here and has not yet materialised? Even to consider this question requires us to examine the issues surrounding globalisation. In this chapter, I want to focus on three aspects: one, to sort out the meanings of globalisation and identify causes and concerns; two, to discuss its effects on contemporary society and in particular business and industry; and three, to explore likely issues and directions for tertiary and workplace education.

12 Margaret Haughey

Globalisation: what does it mean? The very fact that we use the term globalisation as a catch-all expression for so many different ideas suggests how important it is to our thinking. Its lack of specificity is in part a result of our trying to find a term which would capture the source of the changes we are trying to grapple with at this end of the twentieth century. We speak about globalisation in an economic sense as promoting the domination of capitalist economic systems, but we also speak about it in a cultural sense as supplanting the local culture with a media-based world-wide one, and in a political sense as overriding the primacy of the nation state through the ventures of transnational corporations. We argue that globalisation has contributed to the rise of eco-warriors and the global recognition of the impact of environmental issues and discuss how the move from a bi-polar (USSR v. US) to a multi-polar global structure brought about by the end of the Cold War has given rise to new divisions and interests among nation states. Hence, while some argue that globalisation is a move towards homogenisation, others see it as bringing about greater diversity. It is seen as both opportunity and impending crisis. Nor is it necessarily a neutral term, for sometimes it is used to replace, or even obscure, issues like imperialism or colonisation. And as well, we give globalisation a positive or a negative twist depending on our point of view. Much of the writing about globalisation is close to hyperbole. It has been touted both as a strategy for increasing profits and avoiding taxes and as the rationale for reorganising, downsizing, and outsourcing. It is seen as the driving force behind the demand for free trade and greater freedom in the marketplace and, at the same time, is identified as the impetus to replace resource-based economic systems with knowledge-based economies. Its effects are felt in all sectors of our lives. Globalisation is not a simple matter. What might be some common characteristics of globalisation? Globalisation seems to encompass: • • • • •

world-wide economic integration advances in technology which are influencing the economy, culture and society the deregulation of trade, finance and investment redistribution of the workforce and the rise of knowledge workers a private sector that is not location based

A global society needs flexible learning 13 • • • • • •

the development of interest groups across borders a dramatic increase in the pace of change the redistribution of wealth from countries to individuals or corporations state–corporate alliances that redefine citizen participation increased vulnerability to environmental degradation, disease, population migration pressures on developing nations to meet Western employment and environmental standards when collective-type public policies would be better suited to their local needs.

These characteristics, while evident in a wide range of literature, do not necessarily mean that the emphasis in each situation will be the same. Perhaps rather than trying to find a single all-encompassing definition of globalisation, it is more fruitful to look at some of the causes of globalisation and how globalisation is influencing economic, cultural, social and political aspects of everyday life.

The causes of globalisation Why is it that we are so interested in what is happening in the world? Why would several million people watch the news of Princess Diana’s death? Why do broadcasts of the Australian Rugby League football final compete with Hindi films for prime time space throughout much of South-East Asia? (Dhanarajan 1998: 3). Why do Brazilian teenagers kill each other over a pair of US brand sports shoes? We attribute all these events to globalisation, and, in turn, the rapid growth of globalisation can be attributed to a confluence of accelerating increases in education, telecommunications, travel and changing economic structures. With an increased emphasis on education world-wide, and especially in the developed world after 1945, we are all learning more about other countries. At the same time, video communications mean that we can actually see what somewhere else looks like and watch what is happening there. More people travel and bring back stories and photographs of other countries and more people visit from elsewhere. The world’s tourism industry has moved from an emphasis on the European tour, to general travel to formerly more distant areas of the globe, to exotic vacations for those interested in travelling to remote areas which have been visited relatively infrequently. Air travel has become ubiquitous for many travellers so that we come and go across national borders as if we were visiting places within

14 Margaret Haughey our own countries. What was a major journey for our grandparents is routine today. The opportunity to access anywhere almost instantly has become taken for granted. Telephone, fax and computer networks have aided this impression, overwhelming the fact that over 90 per cent of the world’s people have no access to a telephone (United Nations 1996: 167). Mobile satellite systems beam back messages from remote spots which make news headlines. What happens anywhere around the globe can be on the evening news, and the ‘dramatisation’ of the Gulf War by CNN changed forever our understanding of the glamour of weaponry and the drama of war, making it even harder to believe that ‘live’ radio wartime broadcasts from the front were initiated only half a century before. As countries established business allies after the last world war, common markets and free trading zones were established to broaden the base for markets and to benefit from economies of scale in transportation, production and marketing. In turn, customers have become less concerned with ‘foreign made’ products and more interested in quality, durability, value and appeal. The opportunity for regular air travel encourages movement across borders so that not only investment but also people are moving to situations which they find more appealing. Robertson (1992: 8) describes globalisation as referring ‘both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness in the world as a whole’. Globalisation has changed our awareness of space and time. How then has it influenced our everyday lives?

The influence of globalisation Globalisation is evident in many aspects of our lives, but I’ve chosen to discuss its influence on the changing socio-political structures in advertising, in finance and on national governments, since these relate directly to the business and industry sector. Socio-political changes One of the major political changes in recent history has been the demise of authoritarian rulers in various countries. In Eastern Europe, for example, this has meant increases in the need for basic goods on one hand, and a potential market for goods on the other. People are not only hungry for food but also for freedom; they desire to know not only how to survive and make a decent livelihood in a

A global society needs flexible learning 15 free-market system, but also how to set up an independent system of justice, and how to educate jurors. Neither can be developed without information about what is happening in other parts of the world, and having been denied access to information about other nations, these people are often less tolerant of those who would insist that they learn how to develop these things from the grass roots so as to avoid cultural appropriation. Part of their frustration reflects another aspect of globalisation – the sense of being behind, of having insufficient time. The fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the subsequent independence of the Ukraine was an important event for people on the Canadian prairies because many of the original settlers there were Ukrainian. One prairie province, Alberta, has the largest Ukrainian-speaking population outside Eastern Europe. Canadians at once sought to provide Ukrainians with humanitarian aid, to help them learn better skills in agriculture, to increase their access to medical care, and to re-establish their language and revive their culture. At the same time, it was seen as an opportunity to do business, to develop international markets and to exploit relationships for the benefit of both. Businesses which set up industries in the Ukraine benefited from lower labour costs but had to adjust to less stability in the availability of raw materials and electric power. Market development in different cultures, even when you speak the language, was much more complex than many entrepreneurs realised. And while markets were developing, the social and cultural fabric of the country had more influence on business development than foreigners, used to a different socio-economic infrastructure, expected. Advertising One current American advertisement on Canadian television shows two middle-aged American tourists ascending some stairs outside a small business with a sign in Italian advertising oil for sale. The woman, who is at the bottom of the steps beside a small open doorway, holds two bottles of oil. She is pointing to the sign. Just then an elderly woman, her head covered in a black shawl, comes through the doorway. The man begins to raise his camera. The American women, points to the sign and then holds up three fingers saying, ‘We too sell oil. We have three stores in Ohio.’ She smiles and nods and speaks slowly and deliberately as if she supposes the other woman will not understand. The elderly woman looks at them both,

16 Margaret Haughey and then says in English ‘I sell oil in Ohio, and California, and … ’ She continues to rhyme off a list of American states, and countries around the world. She then reaches under her shawl and gives the American woman her card as she turns and walks away. The woman looks at the card and exclaims, ‘She’s on the Internet!’, and then in awe, ‘How can she afford it?’ The advertisement for the Internet provider replaces the vignette. The advertisement has both cultural and economic implications. Not only does it play with our notions of American tourist and Italian grandmother stereotypes, but it also calls into question the whole notion of the traveller on the Grand Tour expecting to see the exotic and primitive. We can laugh at the supposedly superior business acumen of the globe-trotting Americans, which has been surpassed by the local grandmother, but we are also given the lesson that nowadays everyone is on the Internet, it is the best way to do business and it has nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with profitability. The messages about globalisation include: that selling locally is insufficient, and even elderly Italian grandmothers are selling globally; your competitors in your own back yard are from around the world; the language of business is English; and that electronic communications make travel unnecessary. Because of Canada’s proximity to the Unites States, and their shared language, it has been one of the first countries to consider the effects of the American cultural empire and discover the need to retain a cultural identity. In this advertisement it is not hard to find the messages nor to see the potency of advertising as a cultural imperative. Finance Financial globalisation has shown unprecedented growth, accelerated by the deregulation of financial markets in the late 1970s and the growth of computer-mediated communications. Overall, the crossborder assets held by the world’s banks have more than tripled between 1983 and 1993 and the figures on global foreign exchange transactions are estimated to be more than 100 times the value of total world-wide trade in manufacturing and services (Oman 1996). Governments increasingly find themselves trying to cope with reverberations in their economies from events taking place elsewhere on the globe. The effects on the stock market have become more evident as the problems with the Japanese economy in 1990, the Chinese devaluation of the yuan in 1994 and the Japanese devaluation of their currency, the yen, in 1995 all influenced trading in

A global society needs flexible learning 17 international markets. Globalisation took on a much more problematic character when, in July 1997, the Thai currency came under pressure and fell in value. Investors who had already begun to question the viability of the economies, started to move their investments out of Asian markets. This started a ricochet effect on previously stable Philippine and Malaysian currencies, which also ended up being devalued. The next currency challenged was South Korea’s. In October 1997, the Hong Kong currency also came under pressure and when the Hong Kong stock market plummeted so did the Dow Jones, the TSE and others around the world. They recovered quickly but not before the reverberations had been felt on stock exchanges everywhere. In mid-1998, first Indonesia and then Japan came under pressure as their economies faltered. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries who trade heavily with Asia faced slumps in demand as commodity prices started to fall. The South African rand, the Australian dollar and the Canadian dollar all came under pressure. The Russian ruble was forced into devaluation. Investors turned to the US dollar as the only stable currency which had continued to rise, but it is likely that it will be some time before commodity prices start to recover and bring back investor confidence. This supposes, however, that the US economy will continue to grow and those in South America will not default on loans, either of which could trigger a further down-turn and even a recession. Most recently, the Brazilian economy has been under pressure despite loans from major investors. All this is some indication of the interconnectedness of commodity trading, the uncertainty of investor confidence and the volatility of markets around the globe. Even those countries, for example, in much of Africa, which are outside the global market system, feel the impact of these shifts. Their share of the world’s gross national product (GNP) continues to fall and the gap between rich and poor nations continues to increase. The world population is growing rapidly; at 5.5 billion in 1993, it is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (Dhanarajan 1998: 4). Global population growth and expanding industrialisation in the developing world will also have profound effects on other countries. The increased demand for goods and services will require enormous production changes if it is to be met with a fraction of the energy and raw materials used in the developed world since the Industrial Revolution. There will have to be more recognition of the impact of greenhouse gases if we are to avoid environmental degradation, ozone depletion and increases in air and water pollution. There is

18 Margaret Haughey also likely to be more migration as trade agreements ease the regulations for immigration. This will diversify individual nations’ cultures and raise issues of ethic tension. National governments Not only does globalisation threaten the stability of the financial markets, but it also poses a challenge to the relevance of national governments. It erodes both national boundaries and the power of national governments. Many writers on globalisation are concerned that the government will end up playing second fiddle to the multinational corporations and that state–corporate alliances have become standard operating procedure in government. But equally, almost every public or private institution has some national or international interests. These relationships, which are based on finding economic partners or creating new issue-based coalitions, will require governments to develop new mechanisms for cooperation and coordination. More fundamentally, globalisation challenges countries not only to define themselves and to ensure that they have a specific identity, but also to contribute to the development of a global civil society. For global disagreements, we need new mechanisms to renew and reform the international institutions, such as the UN, begun after the last world war, which are no longer effective in dealing with issues of racial hatred and genocide.

Globalisation: overrated or underestimated? Despite the messages in the advertisement, not everyone agrees that globalisation will mean that all businesses will be transnational organisations. Francis Fukuyama, an American scholar and foreign policy expert, contends that many aspects of globalisation are still superficial: ‘It seems to me that the real layer of globalisation is restricted to the capital markets. In most other areas, institutions remain intensely local’ (Fukuyama 1998:1). He points out that for any country, trade is still predominantly within that country’s trading block and specifies that over 60 per cent of European trade is with other European countries. He notes that while we have this media-supported drive towards globalisation, many industries are becoming more specialised and are developing niche markets as local consumer demand varies. One indicator of this trend is the demise of the large national department store chains and the rise of specialty stores, originally for clothes and large items such as furniture and appliances but now also

A global society needs flexible learning 19 for food stuffs, especially for high end-cost items such as coffee. While some of these are local, many are connected to national chains of suppliers or are franchises – local and national simultaneously. That these trends have to be assessed carefully is evident, since the move to decentralisation and specialisation in consumer items is counterbalanced by the move to homogenisation and amalgamation of cultural products such as movie theatres and book stores. It reminds me that my first real sense of globalisation occurred about fifteen years ago when I had occasion to visit a number of Canadian cities dispersed across the country within a couple of months. The realisation that it was impossible to tell which city I was in from the stores, since all the chains had exactly the same décor, was very disconcerting. What might have been unique to a local was very much globalisation to a traveller. Not only are companies expanding their markets in order to distribute disparities and increase income generation, but companies with related interests are combining across sectors. Entertainment giants such as Disney, communications experts such as Sony or Macleans-Hunter and information communications companies such as Microsoft are merging to ensure an edge in the info-tainment market. Because their production is predominantly in the US and reflects US culture, new information technologies, such as the CDROM or digital tape, are seen as extending US cultural homogenisation because they can be disseminated widely in a variety of formats whether on radio or through the Internet. However, the rise in nationalism, ethnic conflicts and religious fundamentalism are clear indications that this homogeneity may not be as easy as some have predicted. It is quite possible that with the increasing use of the Internet by other cultures, the balance may well shift so that diversity rather than dominance may occur. Despite this economic activity, Fukuyama is unconvinced that cultures will be homogenised easily. For him, trust developed through interaction and understanding of the culture’s social networks will never be superseded by transparent business practices. The culture’s moral norms, he believes, dictate the economic activity. He illustrates his point with a description of how Chinese cultural influences limit business. The economy of China is based on family-centred businesses. Because they are only willing to include the extended family in the business and not hire outside managers, such businesses tend to be relatively small and seldom last beyond three generations. Also, it is hard to develop brand names since in China, ‘large marketing organisations are not used’ (Fukuyama 1998: 2). One other reason

20 Margaret Haughey given for resistance to universal homogenisation is government intervention in certain industries. France, a highly bureaucratised and centralised country, made some moves towards deregulation in the late 1980s but had to reverse those decisions when French workers expressed their displeasure. The Italian car industry is sustained more because it is a cultural icon for the country than because it is superbly efficient or economically viable. Many writers on globalisation have been concerned none the less about the growth of corporatism in the world. Maude Barlow, the national volunteer chairperson of the Council for Canadians, quoting figures gathered by the Institute for Public Policy (Anderson and Cavanagh 1998), noted that: The combined sales of the Top 200 transnational corporations are bigger than the combined gross domestic product of all countries minus the biggest nine; that is, they surpass the combined economies of 182 countries. Wal-Mart is bigger than 161 countries including Poland, Israel and Greece. Mitsubishi is larger than Indonesia. General Motors is bigger than Denmark. The Top 200, with a combined revenue of $7.1 trillion, have almost twice the economic clout of the poorest four-fifths of humanity, whose combined income is only $3.9 trillion. However, in spite of their enormous wealth and clout, the Top 200 are net job destroyers – so-called virtual corporations, all together, they employ less than one-third of one percent of the world’s people. (Anderson and Cavanagh 1998: 12) Given the enormous increase in world trade since World War II, there has been no concomitant development of global policies which would regulate the changes in world finance. The most recent attempt to provide such guidance has been the MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which Barlow terms a ‘proposed treaty that would drastically reduce the capacity of national and subnational governments to limit the degree and nature of foreign investment (both outgoing and incoming) or to impose standards of behaviour on investors’. Its purpose, according to Barlow, is ‘to give corporations new rights in law to challenge government policy and new tools to limit the power of elected officials in all signatory countries’ (Barlow 1998: 12). The long-term impact of fiscal policies when linked to global free-trade initiatives have caused concern for many, but corporate economic benefits seem to have outmanoeuvred national social policies.

A global society needs flexible learning 21

What does globalisation mean for business and industry? What does globalisation mean for today’s businesses? No matter how well prepared they think they are, decision-makers will have to consider their competition as not limited to those companies which are operating within their local geographic boundaries. They will have to have better information about present and potential clients and suppliers, be more cognisant of what is happening in other organisations, and be better prepared to make swift adaptations to accommodate changes in their markets. To do this, companies will need employees who are able to bring forward new ideas and alternative solutions and who can access and analyse information databases. As well, writers on organisations such as Clegg and Gray (1996) suggest that organisational structures will change from the traditional bureaucratic structure to a flatter, more team-oriented management model, while Argyris (1991) notes that the increase in knowledge workers will not only change the way monitoring and supervision are carried out but also require managers to develop new learning strategies which help them identify and resolve internal problems in a team environment. In short, use of digital telecommunications, the emphasis on knowledge workers and the availability of flexible learning opportunities are essential in retaining a competitive edge in today’s world markets. While writers on globalisation have placed major emphasis on the economic implications of globalisation, they agree that the development of new telecommunications technologies has been integral to this change. Telephones, facsimile machines and computers have changed the way businesses operate. Multinationals use communications technologies to transfer billions of dollars across international borders daily, and the proliferation of web addresses in advertising suggests that companies are seeing the benefits of belonging to the global network, the Internet. However, while the information society is global by definition, it is far from global in reality. Without changing the conditions which create disparities in access to knowledge, capital and technology, the benefits of network access will remain within its present limits, thereby marginalising whole countries and regions, increasing their disparity and removing them further from participation in emerging economic trends. One of the outcomes of the emphasis on new information technologies has been an emphasis on knowledge workers, those people within an organisation who are the problem definers and the problem

22 Margaret Haughey solvers, who know not only how to access electronic information but how to put it together effectively so that it is of use to a company, and who can use network capabilities to give the company a competitive edge. The instant communications available through the Internet or on television have increased the speed with which information about new discoveries is disseminated. The information sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in the US. Gault (1996) noted that nearly 60 per cent of all US workers are knowledge workers and eight out of ten jobs are in the information sector. Similarly, Albert and Bradley (1997) reported that: In the United States, expert employee-dense industries such as biotechnology, robotics, legal services, accounting, management consulting and computer services registered large growth rates between 1980 and 1986, most near the 50 percent rate. (Albert and Bradley 1997: 24–25) In Great Britain, between 1984 and 1991, knowledge-based industries, such as legal and business services, accountancy and computer services, grew more than 40 per cent (Albert and Bradley 1997). In a discussion of how to become competitive in a global community, Kennedy (1993) suggested that besides increasing savings and reducing deficits and enhancing commercial research and development, companies should improve the level of skill and training among the workforce at large, through opportunities for retraining. This emphasis on lifelong learning is seen as one way to help keep employees, or help employees keep themselves, informed about the changes in their own areas of expertise. It is however a very narrow view of lifelong learning as it is linked entirely to productivity and competitiveness. Increasingly, countries are broadening the definition of learning to include personal, cultural, civic and social dimensions as well as economic and employment concerns. However, changes in business and industry which can be attributed to globalisation also have negative effects. The dislocation caused by the movement of capital and the relocation of businesses in order to take advantage of cheaper labour markets and fewer environmental and fiscal controls needs to be recognised. This is especially so when the local economy is weak and dependent on the industry for employment. The impact of the computerisation of jobs and the reduction in the numbers of employees has been felt almost everywhere in the developed world. Rifkin (1995) contends that the market system of production has made workers and work redundant

A global society needs flexible learning 23 and that world unemployment and underemployment will mushroom. The pace of change means there is even less time to retrain people or to design new jobs. Many companies have chosen to hire part-time rather than full-time employees in order to reduce or expand the workforce in response to immediate demand, for the lowest retention cost. The result has been more people seeking lifelong learning opportunities to try to keep themselves competitive, less loyalty to firms who don’t invest in workers and workers’ greater willingness to travel to jobs where their skills are better remunerated. Businesses that decide to enter international markets need to be aware of the issues involved. Despite the present economic instability, when companies seek to expand their markets many look to Asia. The rise of multiple sites of power since the end of the Cold War, and in particular the rise of Asia as the third pillar of the world economy, is helping to define a new international environment. Working with Asia means learning different ways of doing business, different values underlying multilateral institutions and different constraints on attaining national agendas (such as human rights). This means that, more than ever before, companies and countries have to be cognisant of the cultural complexity and social networks of the people they are working with. Learning has to occur not only for the local clients but also for the foreign producers. Kanter (1991) reported in her study of roughly 12,000 managers from twenty-five countries that their major concern with customers and suppliers was the conflict in corporate cultures. Globalisation and concurrent changes in the social practices of the world’s countries and regions since World War II have caused a sense of accelerated change and a compression of space and time. Everything seems to be happening faster and all these changes have implications for business and industry. There is a greater emphasis on the use of information and current research, and a greater need for information about potential clients, competitors and innovations. Hence, there is more concern for hiring those employees who can manipulate information and analyse data to the benefit of the company. Unfortunately, the quest for greater profit margins to offset the fluctuations in the global economy means that those employees who don’t have proprietary information which the company needs or whose skills are generic and readily available are less likely to be retained; instead, companies will outsource such activities. Employees and their employers are recognising that currency is essential in information and so both are turning to lifelong learning

24 Margaret Haughey opportunities to enhance their employability and profitability. Yet, the pace of change is such that companies cannot afford to send employees on extended training courses. Likewise, employees are hesitant to spend a lot of time away from their jobs in case they are considered expendable. Both are looking for learning opportunities that are flexible and cost efficient. The challenge is whether tertiary education providers will be able to meet the demand of preparing workers for a globalised world. This challenge is explored further in Part II of this book.

The issues for post-secondary education Just as the economic and political issues facing the world’s nations have changed markedly in the last two decades, so also have the pressures on tertiary education. Everywhere, education continues to be seen as the key to economic and personal advancement and, in countries where young people leaving school are unable to find employment, many are returning to school in the belief that more education might be the key to success. Hence there has been increased pressure for places in post-secondary institutions. The fiscal support for public tertiary institutions has changed in the face of demands to balance government budgets and increase healthcare support. In many countries, the change has been manifest as an expectation that students will take on a greater proportion of their own education’s costs and hence that public monetary support will decline. Educational institutions have found themselves acting like businesses, conscious of the bottom line, restructuring their organisations, reducing offerings of less popular subjects, outsourcing auxiliary services and even laying off staff. This has meant that post-secondary institutions have had to rethink their own organisational strategies in the face of decreased funding, increased global competition, increased access to new information technologies (and global competitors) and increased emphasis on industry-related research. Ross Paul discusses some of these issues in more detail in Chapter Three. Educational institutions have not been immune to international competition. Within a three-month period in Hong Kong in 1998, you could have attended convocations (with extensive pomp, ceremony and public relations attached) from universities in Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States. Competition for international students has become essential as local student fee limits are reached and foreign students are needed to retain the institution’s numbers. Although numbers are certainly a major driving force in

A global society needs flexible learning 25 international recruitment efforts, institutions are also recognising the benefits of having a more international student body. Local business people need to be able to work comfortably with clients from other cultures and the links forged through study may well help forge economic relations in the future. As the OECD reports (1997: 3) in a study called The Internationalisation of Higher Education: whether seen as an extension to the traditional commitment of higher education to issues of quality and access or as an innovative and entrepreneurial response to external marketing opportunities, the nature of internationalisation has changed dramatically in the last decade. It no longer emphasises almost exclusively specialised programmes for international students or exchanges of students and academic staff. Instead, internationalisation has moved into the mainstream of the curriculum and administrative structure at many universities and this trend is expected to continue well into the next century.

New learning models for a global society In their search for alternative sources of income and for different ways of ‘doing business’, many post-secondary institutions have turned to working with the private sector. In some countries there has been an increase in the demand for workplace learning from employers, and most engineering and science programmes now include cooperative programmes which sandwich working and study terms. However, the demands from employers are not for the relocation of the university course from campus to the work site. Rather they are requiring new programmes which better reflect the specifics of the workplace environment and which will provide employees with information that is directly applicable to their jobs (see Chapter Fourteen by John Garrick). This reconstruction of knowledge into new, more interdisciplinary structures is challenging the ways disciplines have been traditionally divided. Employers have been impressed with the rhetoric of Peter Senge’s learning organisation (1990) and many consider it essential to develop learning cultures in their own organisations. One organisation which believes it has benefited from this process is the UK Rover Group. In 1979, Rover entered into a manufacturing joint venture with Honda from Japan. Rover built the cars which were sold in Europe as either Rovers or Hondas. Rover learned how to improve its production standards to meet Honda’s quality controls and how

26 Margaret Haughey to involve its people through team-working processes such as those used by Honda. In 1988, Rover went from government ownership to being a subsidiary of British Aerospace and in 1994 it changed owners, moving to BMW. In 1981, the company formed a partnership with the Manufacturing faculty at Warwick University and jointly developed master’s degree programmes in manufacturing systems. These were required to be strictly relevant to the workplace and the participant’s job. Line managers assisted in programme design and gave lectures. There are now also diploma and doctoral programmes. ‘One in every fifty of our associates has a Warwick University qualification,’ said Frank Hayden, Group Training and Development Director, in describing their programmes. In the early 1980s Rover had pioneered the use and development of open learning packages and in 1989 set up video-conferencing centres in all its sites. These centres are open to all workers for study in their own time or, if assigned by managers or supervisors, to study during work time. They include open learning computer-based materials and video-conferenced tutorials given by line managers. Rover has also produced ‘learning to learn’ materials for employees. In 1990, they introduced Rover Employee Assisted Learning which gives every employee an annual right to £100 to cover tuition fees on any subject of their choice, provided that it is relevant to the employee’s present or future career prospects. Each year about 10 per cent of the workforce apply for the grant. Hayden (1997: 3) described how they had instigated a three-year Total Quality Improvement Plan in 1987. Every participant produced a personal development plan to take back to the workplace and put into practice and their progress was reviewed on call-back days. Based on their initial work in Total Quality Management (TQM), the Group decided to set up a programme which would help leaders to inspire employees to increase their contribution to the business. In 1991, they set up an externally accredited Master of Arts programme for Total Quality Leadership. Since then, Rover has begun a collaborative learning network of specialised competencies and information from employees within the organisation and put more of their training in the hands of line managers who then have to know what they are teaching. Their takeover by BMW meant that Rover had to introduce additional courses to ensure that all employees would meet the customer standards set by its new parent. The Rover experience points to the development of education as a partnership between an educational institution and an employer,

A global society needs flexible learning 27 rather than as a service to students. Rover’s various formal programmes are taught partly at the work site and partly on campus. They involve individual partnerships between the participant, the line manager and the university tutor and they require different designs for learning. The biggest challenge to the educational institution is to ensure academic quality while not reverting to traditional models. What is also evident is that in order to remain competitive, workplace learning has to be constant. Every time there is a corporate change, every time they develop a different product or work with a former competitor, new skills and expectations are required from all employees. The organisation has involved traditional providers, done the work themselves and had it accredited, and used synchronous and asynchronous open learning options. Flexibility, openness of access and programmes specifically designed to meet company needs are key to its definition of itself as a learning organisation. The story of the Rover group is repeated in many large organisations around the world. From McDonald’s, the food chain with its own McUniversity for employees, to the externally accredited degree programme set up by Pacific Western Bell Telephone company in the US north-west, companies are looking to strategies that maximise employee learning which has direct implications for productivity. Robin Usher, in Chapter Thirteen, examines some of the effects of these practices on ‘working selves’. Besides formal educational opportunities, organisations are also exploring the advantages of self-directed learning. Zemke (1998: 60) pointed out that: if the ‘ideal’ of the learning organisation is ever to become reality, and if employees are to be continuous learners, the notion of self-directed learning has to move beyond the buzzword phase and become a major force in employee training. Businesses are also finding that if they want to draw quality employees they may well have to offer credit courses that enhance their employees’ career possibilities. While some organisations offer their own accredited programmes, most are more willing to form partnerships with tertiary institutions to meet their needs. Kerka concluded in a review of career education for a global economy: The global economy will influence people’s lives whether or not they are employed in international firms. In the new economy,

28 Margaret Haughey nations compete not only with each other’s economic systems, but also with each other’s research and development and educational systems. Global events affect domestic economies. (Kerka 1997: 1) For tertiary education institutions, the challenges of globalisation are best captured by the growing demand for post-secondary spaces which can only be filled through: alternative strategies to campusbased instruction; the continuing requirement for workplace learning to meet individual learner’s needs; the need for triple A education – any time, any where, any place – to better meet employees’ differing corporate and personal schedules; the growing importance of knowledge-specific architectures which call for the reorganisation of the traditional disciplinary information into interdisciplinary structures that relate specifically to the business partners’ needs; and the continuing importance of the soft skills of communication – leading, problem-solving and decision-making – which are increasingly required of all workers. In this chapter I have sought to explore some of the meanings and concerns that surround globalisation, to describe its impact on society in general and business and industry in particular and to try to identify the pressures put on tertiary educational institutions for flexible learning options and alternative workplace programmes. Globalisation, however we define it, has helped to propel us into thinking about tertiary education and workplace learning in new ways. Its impact on contemporary societies and on their business and industry sectors means that educational organisations have to look beyond their traditional geographic boundaries. They too have to be more cognisant of the needs of potential clients and the offerings of other suppliers, and they have to be better able to accommodate the fast changes in their markets. They have to be able to use digital telecommunications because they have become the electronic infrastructure of a knowledge-based economy. And they need to be able to respond to issues of accreditation and credit banking as programmes and courses proliferate. The demands for flexible learning are clear – and if tertiary educational institutions are not able to respond, then the private sector will.

References Anderson, S. and Cavanagh, J. (1998) ‘Top 200. The rise of global corporate power’, Institute for Policy Studies, online: http://www.corpwatch.org/ trac/corner/glob/ips/top200.html

A global society needs flexible learning 29 Albert, S. and Bradley, K. (1997) Managing Knowledge. Experts, Agencies and Organisations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Argyris, C. (1991) ‘Teaching smart people how to learn’, Harvard Business Review, 69, 3: 99–109. Barlow, M. (1998) ‘Creeping corporatism’, University of Toronto Bulletin, Feb. 3: 12. Clegg, S.R. and Gray, J. (1996) ‘Metaphors of globalisation’, in D.M. Boje, R.P. Gephart, Jr and T.J. Thatchenkery (eds) Postmodern Management and Organisation Theory, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Dhanarajan, G. (1998) ‘Shifting paradigms – the impact of globalisation on open, flexible and distance learning’, ODLAA Occasional Papers, 1: 1–8. Fukuyama, F. (1998) ‘Discussion with Dr. Francis Fukuyama: economic globalisation and culture’, online: http://www.ml.com/woml/forum/ fukuyama.htm Gault, R.F. (1996) ‘The CEO’s PC-Literacy challenge’, Management Review, Oct. Hadyen, F. (1997) ‘Rover Group’s journey towards becoming a learning organisation’, presentation at the Second Global Conference on Lifelong Learning March, Ottawa, Canada. Kanter, R. (1991) ‘Transcending business boundaries: 12,000 world managers view change’, Harvard Business Review, 69, 3: 151–164. Kellner, D. (1998) ‘Globalisation and the postmodern turn’, online: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/dk/ Kennedy, P. (1993) Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, Toronto: Harper Collins. Kerka, S. (1997) ‘Career education for a global economy’, ERIC Digest, online: http://ericae.net/edo/ED355457.HTM OECD (1997) The Internationalisation of Higher Education, Paris: OECD. Oman, C. (1996) The Policy Challenges of Globalisation and Regionalisation, OECD Policy brief, No. 11, Paris: OECD. Rifkin, J. (1995) The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era, New York: Putman. Robertson, R. (1992) Globalisation, Social Theory, and Global Culture, London: Sage. Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, New York: Doubleday. United Nations Development Program (1996) Human Development Report, Paris: UN. Zemke, R. (1998) ‘In search of self-directed learning’, Training, 35, 5: 60–68.

3

Digital technology and university sovereignty Compatibility or collision course? Ross Paul

In the mid-1980s, not long after a Canadian Minister of Education suddenly and without notice or training provision had thousands of personal computers sent out to his province’s schools, a newspaper cartoon showed a teacher and a student sitting across a desk piled with five computers. The teacher was saying to the student, ‘If I have five Apples and I give you two Apples, how many Apples do I have left?’ This one cartoon illustrates well several of the major dilemmas of the digitalisation of our society and education’s response to it. First of all, it depicts the teacher’s resistance to change, using new tools in the same old ways. It demonstrates the outcome of a lack of planning and training for practitioners and a tendency to use new technologies as ‘add-ons’ rather than innovations in teaching. It also points to the importance of culture, by contrasting the culture of the educational institution with that of the politician. Today, more than a dozen years later, the cartoon is no less relevant in its representation of polar opposite approaches to the problem of how our educational institutions fulfil their roles in today’s society. On the one hand, a politician, perhaps frustrated with the perceived lack of leadership and responsiveness in schools, believes that they will be transformed just because they are suddenly inundated with new technology. On the other hand, the professional practitioner continues to function exactly as before, either misusing or ignoring the power of the new learning aids. The purpose of this chapter is to explore such differences as they pertain to the university – at one and the same time an obvious leader in the new ‘Information Age’, and an institution frequently perceived as representing resistance to change. With technology both as a driving force for change and a widely perceived solution to the dilemmas posed by it, its implications for the development of our

Digital technology and universities 31 institutions of higher learning will be examined in the context of competing cultures and how they can be accommodated or resolved. Following a general overview, the conflicts inherent in these cultures will be pursued through five specific issues in an effort to discern their common threads, and hence to suggest effective strategies to cope with them. This is not to put planning on an unrealistic pedestal. One is reminded of Hugh Whitemore’s recent play, A Letter of Resignation, in which the central character, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, poses the question: ‘What makes God laugh?’ The wry answer is ‘people planning’, a joke that should be well known to anyone who has faced the difficult, if unintended consequences of any planned organisational change, especially one involving new technology. It adds a healthy dose of irony to all that follows.

Three central university roles Whatever the future of educational technology, this is a time of rapid change for our universities. In considering potential ways in which universities might evolve, it is useful to consider Newsom and Buchbinder’s (1988) distinction between the three major roles of the modern university as (1) an instrument of social change, (2) a haven for scholars and (3) a tool for economic growth. The first role has been especially prominent since the late 1960s, as the university gradually adopted a broader range of social responsibilities encompassing the overt development of better citizens for a more democratic society. However, the traditional Western view of the university as a haven for scholars has re-emerged in a backlash against some of the extreme forms of the university described in the first model, especially in its social engineering, politicisation of knowledge, democratisation of admissions and perceived lowering of academic standards (for a good discussion, see Emberley 1996). The third and most recent view of the university as a tool for economic growth attempts to bring together the primary intellectual and entrepreneurial forces that have traditionally been separated. In its expectations for an institution much more responsive to the needs of the commercial marketplace, this model has highly significant implications for traditional faculty control over research and curricula. These three models are represented in almost every university today, but the emphasis on each will vary according to a given institution’s mission, mandate and history. The inherent conflicts of

32 Ross Paul most interest to this chapter are those between models (2) and (3) – the traditional notion of a haven for scholars as contrasted with the growing pressure for demonstrable economic benefits. While these conflicts have strong philosophical roots, they are also political in nature, as there is an increasing struggle for power and control over knowledge in the Information Age.

The university and conflicting roles With the increasing recognition of the importance of higher education in the ‘knowledge’ society, the emerging paradigm is model (3). Corporations, governments and students demand much more accountability from our colleges and universities. Expectations that are held of our institutions of higher learning are increasingly utilitarian as governments demand productivity and students seek enhanced access to the job market. As consumers pay a greater share of the costs of higher education, they are also demanding better performance – a more customer-oriented service and more demonstrable results. Over and against these trends is a very strong traditional and conflicting academic culture, reinforced by senates and faculty associations. Forged in an earlier age, when access to a university education was seen much more as a privilege than as a right and when only the elite attended, collective agreements are focused on the autonomy and academic freedom of the individual professor. Faculty negotiators see significant threats to this autonomy as new technologies break down the barriers not only between institutions and across countries, but also among disciplines. As each level of education, from elementary to university, has moved, in turn, towards universal accessibility during the twentieth century, the general public has been increasingly critical of the shortcomings of our traditional ways of approaching the organisation of teaching and learning. This criticism has been sharpened by the debt crisis that has confronted so many Western countries during the past decade or two, as the consequent cutbacks in funding for medical, educational and other social services have been accompanied by public demand for better accountability as to how the limited money is spent. When universities were highly selective and catered to the social and economic elite, they had strong ability to resist change. This was sometimes positive, as in their ability to resist fads and undue political interference, and sometimes negative, in terms of their apparent

Digital technology and universities 33 lack of responsiveness to the perceived economic, social and political needs of a given age. Whatever the result, until very recently, the university has been one of the most stable institutions in our society. Despite this capacity to survive all challenges and to emerge relatively unscathed from whatever pressures have been imposed upon them over the centuries, universities are facing change that is different in both degree and kind from anything previously experienced. Ironically, the primary impetus for this change is growing public recognition of the vital importance and centrality of the university for the economic, political and social development of our nations. With knowledge the new currency of power in the Information Age, and the university the institution in our society most overtly dedicated to its creation and dissemination, it should be thriving as never before.

Technology and the shifting paradigm From this perspective, there is no shortage of advocates for dramatic change in our universities, with technology as the driving force. Dolence and Norris (1995: 2–20), for example, put the case in familiar terms. We are moving from the ‘Industrial’ to the ‘Information’ Age and this requires ‘transformed’ universities. While this transformation has many dimensions, the central paradigm shift is from ‘teaching’ and the control of knowledge to ‘learning’ and the ability to synthesise networks of knowledge. Technology is both a central lever in the move to the Information Age and a key to the resolution of the challenges it poses for our institutions. For such writers, the choice is stark and clear – if universities do not rapidly transform themselves, they run a high risk of stagnation and of being replaced by other, more entrepreneurial and responsive institutions (Dolence and Norris 1995: 94). The next two chapters in this book further explore the issues of flexibility as a discourse and the pursuit of flexible strategies as a response to political, cultural and technological change. Much of the argument is persuasive and many will agree with the assertion that major changes are required if universities are to realise the full potential of their perceived role in the Information Age, but this is apparently easier said than done. Twenty-five years ago, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education observed that, from experience to that date (1972) and especially as compared to the hopes of its early supporters, new technology applied to instruction was being implemented more slowly, costing more money and

34 Ross Paul adding to rather than replacing older approaches to teaching and learning (Carnegie 1972: 1). Despite a massive injection of technology into our institutions in recent years, the current common practice of its ‘hit-and-miss’ application to learning seems little changed from the behaviour observed by the Carnegie Commission twenty-five years earlier. For example, Brown and Duguid (1996: 11) note superficial changes but certainly no transformation of our universities: Yet beyond the replacement of the library catalogue by computer terminals, the use of PCs as sophisticated typewriters, and the explosion of campus e-mail, things don’t look very different. For Nickerson (1988), technology has not yet lived up to its promise because university leaders are not dealing with it in the right way. Specifically, they are asking the wrong questions. After listing the most probable technological developments relevant to education over the next thirty years, Nickerson points out that the problem is that we spend far too much time trying to make these work for education when: ‘The first question we should ask is not “what can technology do?” but rather “What should be done?” ’ (ibid.: 3). He offers a series of ensuing questions, one of the most pertinent of which is: ‘What are the characteristics of an environment that is highly conducive to learning?’, and, only then, the follow-up ‘How can technology facilitate the development and maintenance of environments with these characteristics?’ (ibid.: 8). At one level, trivial, and at another, quite profound in its implications for practice, Nickerson’s first question seems more pertinent than ever as digital technology takes on religious overtones for many of its exponents but seldom achieves their aspirations in practice. He is advocating getting the order right, avoiding the all too frequent tendency to start with the technology and then try to determine how to incorporate it into the prevailing practices which leads to ‘adding on’ rather than transformation. This is supported by Ofiesh (in Gayeski 1993: v), who observes that we tend to use newfangled tools to do things in old, familiar ways when the real challenge is to understand how these new tools might change the way we do things and hence to decide whether they are really ‘better’ or not. What Ofiesh and Nickerson are writing about is central to understanding why there are unintended consequences to technological change. To change a technology is to change the culture of an organisation, whether or not this is planned or recognised.

Digital technology and universities 35 It follows that university leaders need to pay a lot more attention to the potential impact of new technology, both positive and negative, and to attempt to plan for rather than merely to cope with change as it happens. However, while universities have much to learn from the private sector in the management of technological change and the accompanying cultural shifts, notably in those aspects of higher education that lend themselves more readily to a customer focus, the reverse is also increasingly true Indeed, Handy (1996: 113) argues that, as private organisations increasingly employ highly specialised professional workers, they will be run more and more like universities! Thus, notwithstanding clear conflicts between corporate and academic cultures, these differences may be blurring or converging as all of society struggles to keep abreast with the digital revolution. The following issues are useful examples of how rapid technological change is challenging some of the most fundamental and longstanding beliefs and practices in our universities: • • • • •

institutional accountability the creation and validation of knowledge the dissemination of knowledge the ownership of knowledge the awarding of academic credit

Each is examined in turn. Institutional accountability In the traditional ‘haven for scholars’, the professor is accountable to his or her peers in a given field. Papers for publication are judged by those best qualified to assess them and efforts are usually made to provide them anonymously, to guard against favouritism and political interference (although many specialisations are small enough that disguising the identity of authors is not always effective). As the hallmark of the academy, peer review has been an extremely effective mechanism, not only of ensuring objectivity within the usual limits of institutional politics but also of preserving the academy as the exclusive domain of its members. With rising lay interest in what universities do, a more public conception of accountability is emerging in most countries, where there are pressures for comparative ‘performance indicators’ such as graduation and job placement rates, or the amount of money raised

36 Ross Paul through research grants or alumni contributions. The democratisation of higher education has greatly increased the public profile of universities so that such hallmarks of the traditional model of accountability as tenure and academic publication are being openly challenged. Furthermore, technology has increasingly opened up the classroom, for so long the exclusive domain of the professor. As teaching materials are more available in print or other forms, they may be scrutinised by colleagues and members of the general public alike in ways never dreamed of in the earlier conception of the university. As instruments of social selection, universities have traditionally been judged more by their inputs than their outputs. The most prestigious institutions are those that attract the social elite and, more recently, the best academic performers. This emphasis on inputs is reinforced by national rankings of universities, such as that performed annually by Canada’s Maclean’s Magazine which attaches the most weight to such ‘input’ variables as the incoming academic averages of new students and the closely related ‘reputation’ of each institution. Many, such as Dolence and Norris, argue for a more ‘outcome’based evaluation of university effectiveness. Instead of relying on such input measures as student ‘quality’, traditional institutional academic reputation or time spent in the classroom, universities should develop a better understanding of learning outcomes through measureable assessment tools that demonstrate a student’s ability to learn and to apply his or her learning to specific problem-solving (Dolence and Norris 1995: 50). There are strong traditional arguments against this new focus on performance indicators, most notably that the impact of schooling may not be fully appreciated by the individual until many years later and that there are so many complex dimensions to ‘learning’ that it does not lend itself readily to simplistic modes of evaluation. At the same time, there can be little doubt that new technologies are greatly enhancing our ability to measure specific skills and even quite complex critical thinking challenges (for example, through sophisticated simulation gaming), and it is highly unlikely that the public pressure for more ‘output’-related measurements will abate. In the process of responding to these pressures, however, universities will increasingly discover that changes in the way they are evaluated will have significant implications for the way in which they operate.

Digital technology and universities 37 The creation and validation of knowledge Even more fundamentally, the whole notion of what knowledge is and how it is validated is constantly being challenged in the digital society. Traditionally, the creation of knowledge was the primary domain of disciplinary-based academics. While methodology varied considerably across various fields of pursuit, the common denominators were rigorous dedication to methods of inquiry and peer assessment of outcomes. Basic research and publication in prestigious journals have been the hallmarks of the creation and validation of knowledge and successful enough to ensure the long-term survival of a haven for scholars as a critical component in a university. At the same time, the speed of discovery and dissemination of knowledge through new technologies and the increasing recognition of the value of ideas and information in our society have greatly increased demands for applied research and demonstrated benefit. As universities increasingly create quasi-independent research institutes and spin off ‘for profit’ companies, thereby attracting even more corporate funding for applied research, new issues of how knowledge is created and validated are raised, not to mention who ‘owns’ it and under what terms and conditions. It should follow that, if knowledge is the main currency of power, as it increasingly is in the Information Age, technology’s provision of almost universal access to it should greatly democratise our institutions. Of course, it may at the same time undermine their monopolistic claims as the temples of knowledge and spawn a whole new breed of private competitors driven by the huge revenue potentials of world-wide markets. As well, there is the danger that the technological revolution will oversimplify the creation, acquisition and application of knowledge, allowing entry to those without the preparation and experience to understand and interpret it, and blurring the difference between deep and shallow learning so that the very nature of knowledge is reduced and trivialised in the process. It should also be noted that, while the rapidly escalating capacity of technology to provide access to international knowledge networks can be liberating, unequal access to it can reinforce existing social differences. For example, Lewis J. Perelman found that student access to home learning tools was the primary factor accounting for significant differences between low- and high-performance schools, thereby exacerbating differences between ‘have’ and ‘have not’ students (cited in Dolence and Norris 1995: 78).

38 Ross Paul The traditional approach to teaching in universities has been focused primarily on content – what one needs to know in order to understand and advance a particular body of learning. The professor’s role has been to transfer that content from his or her own mind to those of the students, with little recognition that the content might be changed in the process. In some ways, modern technology has made content transfer much easier but also more trivial, in much the same way that the printing press rendered obsolete a monk’s lifelong dedication to transferring handwritten knowledge from one manuscript to another. Now it is easy for faculty members to produce all their lecture notes on the Internet, in handouts or through multimedia presentations and hence to free up their time for much more individual attention to students. What this has done, however, is to open up the classroom door. Suddenly, faculty are producing materials not just for the select group of their own students but for anyone who wants to look at them, including colleagues. While this may increase their accountability, I have written elsewhere of its potentially detrimental impact on distance teaching materials, whereby course packages may be prepared more to impress academic peers through their academic content than to meet the learning needs of students encountering the subject matter for the first time (Paul 1990: 88). There is another view of knowledge that is often overlooked in articles about university teaching or technology’s contributions to modern education. An overemphasis on the ‘delivery’ of knowledge as a package of materials ‘profoundly misunderstands how people learn, where they learn, and when they learn’ (Brown and Duguid 1996: 13). Not only is this a passive view of learning, it also misses much of the real value of a university education: People leave college knowing not just things, but knowing people, and knowing not just academic facts, but knowing social strategies for dealing with the world. Reliable friendships and complex social strategies can’t be delivered and aren’t picked up through lectures, but they give an education much of its value. (Brown and Duguid l996: 13) This is less written about because it is usually the unacknowledged value of a university education but one that advocates of a transformed technological university must take into account. This issue is explored further in the section on the awarding of academic credentials below.

Digital technology and universities 39 In conclusion, it is apparent that the application of new technology to university teaching and learning is more than just a new way to do old things. Whether by accident or design, it is changing the culture of our institutions and challenging the traditional authority of the professor to create and validate knowledge so that our very concepts of what knowledge is are almost certainly changing in the process. The dissemination of knowledge With the increasing trend to accessibility, accelerated by technological improvements, has come a new paradigm, one that emphasises learning over teaching, lifelong learning rather than formalised schooling that ends with adulthood and customised learning which looks at the needs, interests and desires of each individual (see Chapter Four by Ted Nunan). This trend should be ideally suited to the university and all that it purports to represent. However, with the dizzying exponential progress of technological development can come a strong sense that events are moving too quickly for our social institutions and that we are losing control of them in the process. A fundamental concern for the university is whether the relentless technological development of our society is somehow inevitable or whether institutional leaders can play a much stronger role in steering and controlling it. In response to this paradigm shift, a central issue in the organisation and management of a university is the use of its most valuable resource – the time of its faculty members. There are many ways that new technologies can enhance this – by facilitating lectures and demonstrations to very large classes, by permitting individual students to do remedial work in their own time and by making distance learning methods much more interactive and personal. In fact, there is no logical reason why increasingly effective technologies cannot be employed to take much of the passivity out of teaching and learning, and free up the professor for intensive, well-informed and ultimately very efficient use of his or her time in customised oneto-one or small-group sessions with well-prepared students. This is obviously a much better model than students sleeping through a droned lecture or faculty having to teach to the lowest common denominator in the classroom at the expense of learning opportunities for the more capable students. While new technologies offer tremendous opportunities to use faculty and student time more effectively, they can also exacerbate the

40 Ross Paul learning challenge in unintended ways. For example, it was common, only a few decades ago, to hail the new age of technology as one that was going to create much more leisure time, with machines doing the boring and repetitive work, leaving people with much more time to focus on the ‘important’ things – thinking, creating and enjoying a higher quality and standard of life. While there are many examples of ways in which technology has improved the quality of life, there is concomitant evidence that it has sped up our lives by so enhancing ‘justin-time’ communications around the world. Ironically, it has also tended to reduce our leisure time by making it so much easier to work longer hours, to work from home as well as the office, to gain access to much more information and to rewrite manuscripts almost effortlessly so that a given text can be ‘fiddled’ with many more times than ever would have been contemplated earlier. This impact of ‘adding on’ and ‘speeding up’ is very much in evidence on university campuses. More faculty are experimenting with multimedia presentations or delivering their courses over the Internet and more full-time students are taking at least some of their academic programme at a distance (to get more course choice or to juggle work, family and study schedules). In most cases, however, this involves a great deal more work for the faculty while challenging their traditional roles at the same time. In most universities, there is inadequate institutional support for faculty who experiment with whole new ways of inducing their students to learn. Preparation of learning materials for distance delivery is extremely time consuming and cost and time efficiencies only kick in after several years of experience. The reward system recognises academic publishing and academic leadership, but is usually less responsive to innovation and challenges to traditional ways of doing things. Furthermore, faculty worry about encroachments on the classroom and on the ownership of the knowledge which they ‘create’ and disseminate. Course offerings are based on long-standing scheduling systems which provide little flexibility for intensive courses or other ways of teaching that do not break knowledge up into convenient one-hour or two-hour chunks. Put simply, the effective use of technologies for teaching and learning cannot be achieved without the enthusiastic collaboration of the faculty members who will carry them out. In this context, however, it is a mistake always to portray resistance to change as a negative to be overcome and important to acknowledge the value of a university’s counter-culture role in challenging the directions society is taking and avoiding knee-jerk adoption of the latest technological fad.

Digital technology and universities 41 On balance, as the ‘learning’ paradigm is more and more established, it is difficult to envisage any reversion to the previous ‘teaching’ model. At the same time, universities will have to change a great deal more than they have to date to truly incorporate a learning model into their operation, and the consequences will go well beyond what happens to teaching and learning so as to have significant implications for the whole organisation and management of our universities. The ownership of knowledge There is a fascinating ongoing battle between the rapid evolution of technology and the writing of copyright legislation to protect the ownership of knowledge. Creative works, up until very recently available only to specialists and the most persistent researchers, can now be copied, modified, transmitted and resold, often without the knowledge of their creators. Even such an established notion as ‘fair use’ has very different implications when materials are available to millions on the Internet than it did when the practice applied to a single teacher working with a class of a few dozen students. Indeed, a conference of highly experienced practitioners in the field assembled to assess the role of copyright in light of new interactive video and computer technologies in 1988 found much to discuss but ended with considerable disagreement about the way forward and no real solutions to the inability of our social legislation to keep pace with technological development (Bollier 1998). It will be a major challenge for those responsible for copyright legislation and its enforcement to stay ahead of the technology. While there is considerable worry about major corporate interests dominating the Internet, one can also envisage such networks as liberating forces that put all sorts of cyberspace guerrillas in touch with one another. Here, then, is yet another battlefield between liberating and controlling forces. As well, the increasing corporate involvement in university research, especially that applied to specific industrial challenges and problems, further complicates the issue of the ownership of knowledge. The compromise is usually to permit the corporate sponsor to ‘own’ the innovation for a certain period of time (for reasons of competitive advantage) before releasing it back to the faculty member. On balance, it is hard to imagine how the forces for control will be able to keep abreast of the rapidly developing communication technologies. Just as dictators and repressive regimes have always

42 Ross Paul been overthrown by grassroots communications, it is likely that whatever tendencies there will be for the powerful to gain control of modern knowledge systems will ultimately be surpassed by the increasing empowerment of the individual in terms of his or her access to knowledge at any time and in any place. In the long term, our inability to control the sources of knowledge may even change the competitive notion of ownership to a more cooperative notion of knowledge as a universal collective. However, especially given that a core function of the university is control of standards for academic credits (see ‘The awarding of academic credentials’ below), this idealistic notion may have a hard struggle against the prevailing forces for control and power in the knowledge society. The awarding of academic credentials In many of the radical writings on education in the 1960s, notably Ivan Illich’s (1971) Deschooling Society, there were confident predictions that the institutionalisation of learning through formal degree credentialing would soon be a phenomenon of the past. While there has been considerable progress made with such concepts as prior learning assessment and challenge examinations since then, the formal institution’s control over credentials has, if anything, been strengthened. This speaks not only to the power of the prevailing social institutions (universities and their boards, faculty and professional associations) but also to the recognition of the need for accreditation and quality control in an age when accessibility and technology have allowed so many new players into the field. In fact, Brown and Duguid (1996: 12) see the degree credential as the central feature that will protect the future of the modern university, as the major ‘core competency’ that separates a university from other institutions in our society. While they present one possible view of the future where this accrediting function is more separate from teaching and learning activities than it is today, their example underlines rather than downplays its importance. The central challenge, of course, is to ensure that the accreditation is appropriate and not just a protective device to resist change and to perpetuate an ‘old boys’ network’ of educational institutions. It is useful to note that accreditation is much more prominent in countries like the USA, where there has been a proliferation of institutions of higher learning than it is in countries where universities are more elite and harder to enter.

Digital technology and universities 43 It follows that, as other countries with traditionally more selective systems of higher education democratise their institutions and open up access, they will increasingly look to various forms of accrediting agency to ensure the quality of what is offered. Even with such a system, however, they will quickly be confronted with the same contradictions discussed earlier between traditional ‘input’ notions of academic quality (the perceived prestige and status of those who control the knowledge dissemination) and the emerging ‘output’ measures (demonstrated skill development). Especially given the importance noted earlier of a university’s provision of access to networking and social skills as the true source of its status and power (Brown and Duguid 1996: 13), the reputation of the more traditional university will be protected. Until and unless institutions trying to deliver education at a distance recognise this and develop new strategies to emulate informal on-campus interaction more effectively than they have to date, no accreditation process will bring them the parity of esteem they seek, even in a more technological age.

Conclusions For each of the five examples chosen, the rapid development of technology has been associated both with new challenges to the academy and promising improvements to the accessibility, quality and performance of our institutions of higher learning. In each case, there are conflicting forces for change and resistance to it, with few clear conclusions about which will prevail. However, the following have considerable substantiation and form a good starting point for anyone contemplating true transformation of a modern university through digital technologies: • •

•

•

A change in technology will usually be associated with a change in the institutional culture, whether planned or unintended. The informal, social role of a university is central to its authority and effectiveness and it explains much of the staying power of prestigious universities in particular. Any strategy for change will ignore this at its peril. Faculty resistance to change should not always be seen as a negative and it will be more effectively overcome by persuading professors of the value and advantages of new technology than by more confrontational measures. As students pay more and more for a university education, especially during periods when higher level jobs are relatively scarce,

44 Ross Paul

•

they will demand more accountability and a higher quality of service from their institutions. Student demands, more than any other force, will transform our universities. The starting point for any institutional strategy applying technology as a solution to educational problems must be the sorts of questions posed by Nickerson, notably ‘what are the conditions most conducive to effective learning?’ (Nickerson and Zodhiates 1988: 3). The answer will depend tremendously on the local culture, the discipline and the personal circumstances and academic readiness of the students, but its very asking will ensure that the educational institution addresses the challenge from the right starting point.

This last point is the key to our quest for excellence, our search for better ways to use our limited resources most effectively. As I have written elsewhere (Paul 1995), the real lessons from the past three decades of experience in distance education are not in terms of technological breakthrough, but in what we have learned about the needs of adult learners for student support, course design and interaction with peer and tutor. At the same time, we should not fall into the trap of believing that the recent experience of distance education has been the breakthrough that higher education needs to transform itself into the ‘tool for economic growth’ so much in demand today. As emphasised by Dolence and Norris and Brown and Duguid, distance education and other technological enhancements to educational delivery have not really transformed educational practice so much as found new ways of delivering the traditional university product to new groups of learners. It has perhaps helped to open the door to university education, but it has also very quickly become as institutionalised and may be as resistant to change as the traditional classrooms it purports to replace. At the symbolic birthplace of modern distance education, the 1982 Vancouver conference of the International Council for Correspondence Education (ICCE) where it was renamed the International Council for Distance Education (ICDE), I wrote a musical revue about the subject of this chapter. Its central theme, ‘Technology’s the answer – but what is the question?’ (Paul 1990: 119), seems even more relevant today in its emphasis on the right starting point. If we start with Nickerson’s questions instead of with technology itself, we may yet find the answer in technology as a key means to higher learning, but not as an end in itself.

Digital technology and universities 45

References Anderson, T.D. and Garrison, D.R. (1998) ‘Learning in a networked world: new roles and responsibilities’, in C.C. Gibson (ed.) Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes, Madison, Wisconsin: Atwood Publishing. Bollier, D. (1998) The Role of Copyright in the Development of Interactive Video Publishing and New Computer Software for Personal Use, Report of an Aspen Institute Conference, Queenstown, Maryland (26–28 April), Truro, Maryland: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1996) ‘Universities and the digital age’, Change, July/August: 11–19. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1972) The Fourth Revolution: Instructional Technology in Higher Education, New York: McGraw Hill. Dolence, M.G. and Norris, D.M. (1995) Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century, Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning. Emberley, P.C. (1996) Zero Tolerance: Hot Button Politics in Canada’s Universities, Toronto: Penguin. Garmer, A.K. and Firestone, C.M. (1966) Creating a Learning Society: Initiatives for Education and Technology, A Report of the Aspen Institute Forum on Communications and Society, Washington DC: The Aspen Institute. Gayeski, D.M. (ed.) (1993) Multimedia for Learning: Development, Application, Evaluation, Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Hall, J. (1996) ‘The revolution in electronic technology and the modern university’, in T. Evans and D. Nation (eds) Opening Education: Policies and Practices from Open and Distance Education, London: Routledge. Handy, C. (1996) Beyond Certainty: The Changing Worlds of Organizations, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Harasim, L.M. (ed.) (1990) Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment, New York: Praeger. Hefzallah, I.M. (ed.) (1990) The New Learning and Telecommunications Technologies: Their Potential Application in Education, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Illich, Ivan (1971) Deschooling Society, London: Calder and Boyars Ltd. Information Highway Advisory Council (1995) Connection, Community, Content: The Challenge of the Information Highway, Final Report, Ottawa: Industry Canada. Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology, London: Routledge. Lowe, P. (1995) The Management of Technology: Perception and Opportunities, London: Chapman and Hall. Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Newsom, J.A. and Buchbinder, H. (1988) University Means Business: Universities, Corporations and Academic Work, Toronto: Garamond Press.

46 Ross Paul Nickerson R.S. (1988) ‘Technology in education in 2020: thinking about the non-distant future’, in R.S. Nickerson and P.P. Zodhiates (eds) Technology in Education: Looking Toward 2020, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Paul, R.H. (1990) Open Learning and Open Management: Leadership and Integrity in Distance Education, London: Kogan Page. —— (1995) ‘Virtual realities or fantasies? Technology and the future of distance education’, in J. Roberts and E. Keough (eds) Why the Information Highway? Lessons from Open and Distance Learning, Toronto: Trifolium Books. Postman, N. (1993) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, New York: Vintage Books. Scholfield, J.W. (1995). Computers and Classroom Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4

Exploring the concept of flexibility Ted Nunan

The first thing that we can say about the use of the word ‘flexible’ in educational writing is that it is ubiquitous. It appears in educational writings in all developed capitalist countries and in all sectors of education. Latchem (1997) has provided a global perspective on flexible delivery while Lundin (1998), for example, has traced definitions of flexible delivery in European Union countries and in different education sectors in his analysis of the changing educational scene. Tim Luke (1997) has provided a powerful analysis of how ‘flexible specialisation goes to college’, outlining the political economy of the virtual university. Richard Edwards (1997) has analysed the words ‘flexibility’ and ‘lifelong learning’ with a focus on the education and training of adults. In Australia, the recent West report saw ‘flexibility’ as a watchword: Flexibility and responsiveness will be the watchwords for success over the next 20 years – for individuals, for organisations (including higher education institutions) and for nations. The demands made on the higher education system will grow, diversify, and rapidly change. Australians will demand flexibility over what, how, when and where they study, and it will be critical for our national well-being that those demands are met. (West 1998: 69) This ubiquitous use of the term flexibility is not surprising, as it is part of the vision and values of what Gee and Lankshear (1995: 5) call ‘fast capitalist’ texts: texts which announce the birth of a new work order in the ‘enchanted workplace’ of post-Fordist societies. They claim that the ‘vision and values [in such texts] have deeply informed contemporary calls for reform both in adult education and

48 Ted Nunan training, as well as in schools across the ‘developed world’. The logic of ‘fast capitalism’ has invented flexible learning: The new capitalism is based on the design, production and marketing of ‘high quality’ goods and services for now saturated markets. In the ‘developed’ world today economic survival is contingent upon selling ever more perfect(ed) and newer ‘customised’ goods and services to ‘niche’ markets, that is, to groups of people who come to define and change their identities by the sorts of goods and services they consume. The emphasis now is on the [active] knowledge [and flexible learning] it takes to design, market, perfect and vary goods and services as ‘symbols’ of identity, not on the actual product itself as a material good. And, thanks to technological and social changes, this sort of ‘quality’ competition is now fully globalised. The ‘winners’ design ‘customised’ products and services ‘on time’, ‘on demand’ faster and more perfectly than their global competition, or they go out of business. (Gee and Lankshear 1995: 6) So pervasive is this logic that it is possible to replace the word ‘capitalism’ by the word ‘education’ in the above quote and the passage could well be taken for the advice from an educational text offered to educational institutions in any sector. Generally, the greater the degree of marketisation of education, the greater the exposure to the vision and values of ‘fast capitalism’ and the greater the reliance upon the logic of flexibility, self-directed learning, lifelong learning and such terms in explaining strategies for educational practice. Because of increasing pressures for marketisation in university, vocational and further education systems, the logic of the ‘fast capitalist’ text is being absorbed into the educational strategies and practices of these systems. Chapter Eight by Edwards and Tait examines in further detail the policy implications of such pressures. The second, and related, thing that we can say about the use of the word ‘flexible’ in educational writing is that it has multiple meanings. The word is usually coupled with other educational concepts such as learning institutions (flexible organisations), delivery systems (flexible delivery) and learning (flexible learning), indicating its relevance for managers, educational workers and students alike. It is associated with the notion of reform in higher education and is often cited as a response to the change from an elite to a mass system. It is viewed as a response to globalisation, new information technologies

Exploring the concept of flexibility 49 and new ways of consumption by educational ‘consumers’ in post-Fordist societies (which are characterised by these kinds of change). It is connected with student-centred learning, reaching national training and educational goals to achieve a productive and competitive workforce, and is also seen as a way of competing in the local and global markets that are being created for educational services. Educationally, flexibility is both a means to, and an end of, lifelong learning; lifelong learning creates flexibility and flexibility of educational provision makes possible lifelong learning. In the search to tie down the use of the term ‘flexible’ through particular examples of educational practice, distance education is often cited as an area that is being transformed. As Kenway notes, distance education is ‘a field which is, to some extent, at the cutting edge of the nexus of formal education, the new information technologies and the market’ (Kenway et al. 1992: 5). It is no accident that the field of education in which debates about the impact of Fordist and post-Fordist approaches take place is distance education (Stevens 1996; Evans 1995; Rumble 1995). The two elements, information technologies and the market, are often seen as defining characteristics of post-Fordism and their impact upon distance education has meant that flexible ‘responses’ are now a feature of distance education. New computer-based administrative systems, online components involving virtual groups and enhanced communications with staff, online library support and flexible assessment processes are just some of the innovations of distance education. Further, as a response to changing consumer markets, one distance education institution is experimenting with a computer-based system to track different parts of the market to identify and attract new customers and maximise revenue over time (Rudich 1998). Indeed, to stress their attention to ‘clients’ and innovation, some institutions are even using the term ‘flexible education’ to replace distance education. The third, and possibly the most important thing, that we can say about the term ‘flexible’ is that discourses about flexible organisations, delivery and learning contain contested terms and concepts. For example, the meanings attached to post-Fordism, flexibility and flexible specialisation are contested in theoretical debates about postFordism involving competing schools of thought. The use of the term ‘flexible’ within educational writing is also contested because of the often contradictory implications contained within the educational version of the vision and values of ‘fast capitalism’. The multiple and often contradictory connotations associated with the term ‘flexibility’ make exploring the concept quite a difficult task –

50 Ted Nunan we can already see that the way in which the term is used is likely to depend on the group that chooses to use it and the agendas they wish to achieve. The fact that discourses using the term will be contested by others makes such an exploration interesting for its own sake. However, understanding whether to support or resist the changes that parade under the banner of flexibility and how this might be done is of far more importance for educators. As educators, we must be clear about the social values that we trade in when we embrace discourses, methodologies and ideologies that employ the term ‘flexible’. Interrogating the concept will help to sharpen our awareness of who benefits from, and who is disadvantaged by, discourses that use the term ‘flexible’. We will be asking what are the consequences of managing educational institutions and organising teaching and learning in flexible ways as opposed to other ways. The next section of this chapter is concerned with identifying different discourses which include the term ‘flexible’. The impact of discourses in shaping ways of seeing, thinking, interacting and valuing is explored through the use of the ‘flexible’ paradigm by information technologists working within education. The subsequent section touches upon discourses and power relationships and illustrates the links between the term ‘flexibility’ and changed power relationships within education. The final section brings together the preceding analysis and explains how the concepts of flexible delivery and flexible learning can be applied in educationally sound ways by exploring the strategic and policy framework for teaching and learning of the University of South Australia.

Discourses on flexibility The starting point for our exploration of the concept of flexibility is to identify the different ways in which groups use and give meaning to the word ‘flexible’. For some, the term is understood through its connections with other key concepts. Sociologists who write about work, education or management are likely to give the term meaning through their understanding of post-Fordist discourses. On the other hand, many teachers and educators draw meanings from educational discourses that often have a focus upon methodological practice. For this group, ‘flexible’ is about flexible learning and this is about what they do as teachers, how much learning takes place and what learners achieve – all of this is a long way from theoretical debates about post-Fordism! Exploring the term ‘flexible’ is about understanding the basics of

Exploring the concept of flexibility 51 these discourses so that when we use the term we are aware of the lineage/s of the concept and the possible range of connotations that come with the discourses that we, or others, use. For the purposes of this chapter it is useful to explore briefly three ways in which the term ‘flexible’ is used – first, in the sociology and management of education, second, in the sociology of work and third in the literature written by teachers. The sociology and management of education The sociology and management of education position is explained by Peter Scott in The Meanings of Mass Higher Education (1995: 92), when he notes that: The phenomena labelled either post-industrial or post-Fordist can be divided into three groups. The first comprises technological advances and changes in economic structure: these include the shift from manufacturing to services, the emergence of a global economy and the information technology/hyperautomation revolution in industry. The second embraces wider social and cultural shifts; these include the intensification of consumers, the ambiguous rise of so-called post materialism and the replacement of class-determined life chances by individualised lifestyles as the primary source of social identity. The third group includes intermediate phenomena, such as changes in the structure of organisations and the pattern of employment, which link ‘work’, or the economy, and ‘life’, or society. While the above is about meanings of the phenomena labelled postFordist, connections between such phenomena and education are clear. Education is facing the effects of the same three groups of phenomena: changes in economic structure (the fiscal crisis of the State) and new information technologies are cited as reasons for reducing labour costs and engaging with a global market for knowledge products; education is fragmenting and addressing niche consumers and competing for students by adjusting services to meet the needs of ‘consumers’; education systems are being restaffed with greater numbers of casual teachers at the periphery who work with a smaller group of core staff, and their curricula are being changed to include links with work and the development of lifelong learning skills (also see the Edwards and Tait examination of these issues in Chapter Eight). The educational responses and solutions offered to

52 Ted Nunan deal with these phenomena invariably employ the term ‘flexible’, usually in phrases such as ‘flexible educational organisations’, ‘flexible delivery’ and ‘flexible learning’. There is, of course, some way to go before the above analysis can be translated into the principles and policies which shape actual teaching and learning practices. Nevertheless, as the introductory quote from Gee and Lankshear illustrates, the logic of ‘fast capitalism’ already contains broad strategic directions for educational practices. The sociology of work Analysing the term ‘flexible’ using sociological perspectives of work means that we can apply different theoretical positions to the debate about reworking universities, reinventing academic work and reconceptualising the outcomes of education. There are three distinct schools of sociological theory about postFordism and flexibility: the French ‘regulation school’ of Marxist political economy; the institutionalist school exemplified by Piore and Sabel; and the managerial school with a flexible firm as its model (Bagguley 1991: 152). These sociological analyses are useful because we can first identify different descriptions of the change from Fordist to post-Fordist stages of capitalism. We can then examine how education, through its institutions, workers and products, has adjusted to these changes according to the different schools of thought. Interestingly, these three ways of understanding post-Fordism can be linked to differing political positions – the regulation approach has a Marxist orientation, the institutionalist approach is related to leftreformist socialism and the managerial approach is related to the political right. Undertones of these three positions resonate in particular educational responses to post-Fordist changes and, as we shall see later, can be seen in the ways that educators conceptualise lifelong learning. The literature written by teachers We see another type of discourse when we look at the ways that the terms ‘flexible delivery’ and ‘flexible learning’ are used in teachers’ writings. Flexible learning involves the intention to increase learner access to, and control over, particular teaching and learning environments (Nunan 1996). Thus ‘flexible’ is connected with such worthy aims as improving equity through wider access to education and dealing with diversity through student-centred approaches to

Exploring the concept of flexibility 53 learning. Thus the term adds to its connotations the virtue of student-centred and self-managed learning. At a methodological level this is evident when flexible learning has been: used as a banner under which to promote a shift from formal, whole-class didactic teaching towards individual or group management of learning through the provision, by the teacher, of structured resource materials, together with opportunities for the negotiation of tasks (often through specific ‘learning contracts’ drawn up to formalise requirements for the individual), self and peer-assessment, and collaborative group work, often on ‘reallife’ projects. (MacFarlane 1992: 5) However, such methodologies can result in educational packages being created so that self-directed study can take place anywhere and at any time and such commodities help to create educational markets and generate consumer choice and competition. A recent work by Taylor et al. (1996) reports the view of academics, academic managers and support staff regarding flexible modes of delivery: Our investigation points to yet another form of diversity, generated out of particular roles played, and related to views on flexible modes of delivery. Our interviews can be seen as variations on three relatively distinct discourses. One focuses on the issues of market share, with flexible modes of delivery increasing the reach of the faculty school into potential markets. Another focuses on issues of client needs and service, often addressed within a distance education framework. A third focuses on issues of interaction with students, with equity seen largely in terms of equal access to opportunities for interaction. (Taylor et al. 1996: 89) Meanings are differentiated by the context in which the term ‘flexibility’ is applied or used. For example, while the majority of academics in Taylor’s study perceived flexible learning as being advocated from an economic rationalist perspective, they did not identify with this agenda and instead chose to see ‘flexibility’ as: involving the provision of increased learning opportunities and options. In addition, ‘flexibility’ was seen as an attempt to work

54 Ted Nunan towards the notion of the autonomous learner, particularly challenging the ‘culture of dependence amongst on-campus students’. Thus the move to adopt flexible practices was seen as contributing to improved levels of student satisfaction and quality learning, with positive outcomes for the academics – a ‘win–win’ outcome. (Taylor et al. 1996: 49) Not all academics would, of course, view flexible delivery in this way. Ambiguities and contradictions revealed by interrogating the concept of flexibility are of interest to educators who wish to adopt the term ‘flexible’ to further progressive ideals. The win–win outcome for academics described by Taylor above is an example of manoeuvring amongst connotations of ‘flexible’ in a way that is advantageous to academics. At the level of educational practice, interrogating what is meant by the term ‘flexible’ is a difficult undertaking. The discourse at this level often ignores or blurs features of social, political or economic consequence and creates related or new meanings and values, which it attaches to the words which describe practice. Many educators argue that the term ‘flexibility’ can mean whatever you want it to mean. It can serve the interests of educational managers who, in a competitive environment, need to focus on effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of educational services. For students and teachers, it can suggest a focus upon lifelong learning skills and the democratisation of processes of learning and teaching. For curriculum developers, it may mean the need to provide a range of approaches to suit student diversity. For those with an interest in information technologies and the application of these technologies in education, it confirms the centrality of such technologies in the processes of change. For those marketing educational services, it can mean the production of commodities that can be used competitively for income generation in a global educational market. And for those students who cannot, or choose not to, attend an educational institution, it can spell the end of campus-bound teaching, with education being delivered to the home and workplace in ways and times to suit their circumstances (Nunan 1996). It is a solution which can be paraded as a philosophy – but at the same time, if this runs the risk of challenging existing beliefs and values, it can be cast as a technique to be used in the service of a specific educational philosophy or ideology. In short, the solution of flexible delivery and flexible learning has the virtue that it provides something for everybody!

Exploring the concept of flexibility 55

Flexibility and lifelong learning If ‘flexibility’ is both a response and a solution to educational needs shaped by post-Fordist changes, then lifelong learning is its incarnation as a goal of institutional forms of education. Consequently, any examination of the term ‘flexible’ will inevitably involve consideration of the concept of lifelong learning. Lifelong learning is, in part, an attitude which accompanies graduates so that as citizens they can see the need for regular ‘industrial re-treading’ of their skills. As Simon Marginson (1997: 7) notes, ‘all governments in liberal societies set out to create self-managing citizens, and use the autonomous individuals thus created as a vehicle of order and rule’. Producing economic citizens adds a requirement that citizens understand enterprise culture and can flexibly train and retrain themselves as economic needs change. As with the term ‘flexibility’, there are ambiguities and contradictions in the concept of lifelong learning. Richard Edwards (1997: 64) outlines three broad strands of influence on policy development relating to lifelong learning. These can be traced through different discourses on problems and policy solutions in the provision of education for adult learners. He identifies cultural restorationists, modernisers and progressives, but cautions against attempting to attach political categorisations to these positions, as parts of one particular position may be embraced by those of different positions. In addition, there are fundamental ambiguities about the ways in which lifelong learning can be conceptualised. I would even argue that the educational consumerism underlying the concept of lifelong learning can be put forward as a form of moral doctrine, as lifelong learning brings continuing paid work which supports the system of choice, competitiveness and accumulation. Alternatively, lifelong learning can be portrayed as a fundamental educational good as it is about acquiring the skills to continue to grow and learn and is seen as an essential part of empowering people.

Flexibility and technological change So far we have concentrated on discourses of post-Fordism as a way to explore how the term ‘flexible’ is used within education. We will now consider just one aspect of post-Fordism, namely technological change. The ways of thinking that are intrinsic to the ‘flexible’ paradigm have been, for the most part, adopted by information technologists working in education.

56 Ted Nunan In university education in Australia, the impact of information technologies has been the subject of a number of governmentcommissioned reports (Mc Cann et al. 1998; Yetton and Associates 1997; Tinkler et al. 1994, 1996), which identify the role of such technologies in creating a new ‘flexible’ paradigm for higher education. Yetton and Associates (1997), in particular, deal with three organisational forms that institutions have generated as a response to the new paradigm. This new paradigm is characterised by ‘courses on demand’, ‘year-round operations’, ‘lifelong learning’, ‘information on demand’, ‘market values’, ‘competition is everyone’, ‘student as customer’, ‘delivery anywhere’, ‘global’, ‘bits and bytes’, and ‘technology as differentiator’. The organisational forms (which Yetton and Associates call ‘models’) which are delivering elements of the new flexible paradigm are: Model 1: IT (Information Technology) is used to enrich its elite learning community. This model, based on maintaining the established base while funding independent new ventures, creates a number of small entrepreneurial ventures based on unique and different competencies. Successful ventures grow, while ‘feeding’ the established university campus with their innovations in teaching, learning and research. The ventures have the ability to select expertise with few constraints, including terms and conditions of employment. This attracts high status academic risk takers and innovators. The administrative IT system will be flexible and user-friendly. Model 2: IT supports the success of semi-autonomous faculties. The devolved powerful faculties, enabled by a powerful central IT infrastructure, each have different competencies and strategic foci. This form is more complex to manage given its scale, but relies on the focused innovation and particular competencies of its academic divisions to manage and limit that complexity. Each division would have its own IT support, and to some extent develop its own appropriate set of technologies, management processes and skills and roles, which focus on the division’s core competencies in particular areas of applied research and teaching. Model 3: IT is central to and critically underpins the strategic agenda. A new ‘subsidiary’ delivers IT-based teaching and learning, undertaking its innovative IT-based development in a separate, centrally resourced unit, and building new core competencies. IT enabled teaching and learning, designed to deliver

Exploring the concept of flexibility 57 quality and reliability to a large number of students, is the key driver in this model. In such a ‘greenfield’ site, highly skilled experts can be selected as required, with a focus on the motivation and ability to work in multi-functional teams. Administration will be primarily management based. (Yetton and Associates 1997: 4) The point of providing some detail here is to illustrate that from the perspective of those dealing with information and communications technology, education is already changing to a new ‘flexible’ paradigm, that the change is revolutionary and that it brings structural change. From the viewpoint of strategic planning for the new paradigm, information technologists challenge the assumptions behind the current operation, planning, management and teaching and learning of education institutions by asking questions such as: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

To what extent should institution-wide planning be centred upon resource issues surrounding the introduction and use of information technologies? To what extent should planning processes be changed to integrate areas that are being brought together by the convergence of technologies? Should advisory structures change to incorporate a more complex mix of stakeholders brought by the use of information technologies? Does this apply to course and research advisory structures as well as to delivery structures that may involve networking and collaborative arrangements with private sources? What will an institution see as its boundaries for recruitment of students and how are they defended where other institutions may see their electronic boundaries overlapping those applied by other institutions? Does the introduction of information technology mean the integration and packaging of administrative support for students in radically different ways to that currently used? How will an institution deal with questions of access to its taxpayer-funded electronic resources where students may not own the technologies necessary for access or be unwilling to pay for communications charges to use such technologies? How will the institution carry out an ‘industrial re-tread’ exercise with its staff to update skills and attitudes to meet the changes brought by using information technologies?

58 Ted Nunan •

•

What will the policy of the institution be in relation to the function of the library in storing and providing digital resources owned by the institution? How will institutions define their rights over the intellectual property created by their employees? How will institutions respond to internationalisation within their own curriculum, course delivery and research products? How is policy arrived at within an institution?

What is interesting about these questions is that they come from a particular way of seeing, thinking and valuing which is embedded in the ‘flexible’ paradigm. This makes it vitally important for information technologists, planners and managers to question their own assumptions about the value of the flexible paradigm as, for many, communication and information technology is already central to a new educational reality.

Flexibility and power relationships An exploration of the discourses of flexibility reveals the operation of power. At base is the power relationship between producer and consumer. There are a number of positions about the source of this power relationship. One is that production determines consumption (Fordist), another that consumption now causes flexible production (post-Fordist) and yet another that the interplay of consumers with choice and enterprising producers sets up a dynamic balance of power regulated by markets. Keat (1991) expresses the view that: the relatively anonymous and impersonal character of mass production and consumption is arguably being displaced by more differentiated and individualised goods and services, thereby providing consumers with a heightened sense of individual autonomy and choice. Flexibility and responsiveness to the consumer are nowadays genuine requirements for the producer, indicating that the preferences of consumers are, to some considerable extent, generated independently and out of the producer’s control: hence the increasingly ‘demand’ or ‘market-led’ character of production. And these changes are arguably taking place in the context of a more general shift towards a culture in which consumption is itself seen as a primary mode of self-expression. (Keat 1991: 8)

Exploring the concept of flexibility 59 Where education is provided as a market commodity (choice of provider, prices determined by markets and paid by students) it can be included in the shift to a more general culture of consumption. However, where governments become contractors of educational services on behalf of customers (students), demand and supply are subject to political forces and regulation and the move to a consumption culture more complex and incomplete. Further, institutions rely upon the values of a producer culture to create scholarship and research. Often, the values of a culture of consumption are grafted onto the opposing values of production culture, thereby establishing an inevitable tension of competing value systems that operate within higher education institutions. Under these circumstances, claims that flexible learning is where students have the flexibility and power to choose what, how and when they learn, and also share power in determining how their learning can be assessed, are naive and overstated. There will continue to be a complex balance of powers between teacher and learner (producer and consumer) which will change as the ecology of learning and teaching environments changes.

Working with flexibility How useful for educators is such an exploration of the term ‘flexible’ as this? The first and most important finding is that an institution’s adaptations for greater flexibility will be policy driven. The word ‘flexible’ is used as a banner – it requires definition and direction through policy initiatives if it is to be understood and applied within an institution. The second finding is that in looking at policy-driven initiatives to increase flexibility, we will need to include and define other key operational areas – and likewise, policy initiatives involving other areas will need to include a consideration of ‘flexibility’. Third, such initiatives will be contested because they are likely to be seen as harbouring radical change that will be difficult to incorporate into existing practices. This then requires extensive explanation of the purposes and directions of change, and the legitimation of policy initiatives through formal and informal structures. An example of these findings can be seen in the ‘Teaching and learning framework’ of the University of South Australia. The following statement and accompanying diagram (Figure 4.1) are part of a longer policy and planning document.

60 Ted Nunan The university’s teaching and learning strategy statement on progress The conceptual framework There are three key concepts underpinning our approach to teaching and learning. They have been progressively developed, adopted and refined since 1993. Two of them, student-centred learning and graduate qualities, are organising concepts and one, flexible delivery, is an enabling concept. When applied in the teaching and learning environment, these three concepts are infused with the University’s distinctive mission, which emphasises equity and the application of knowledge in professional settings.

Organising concepts •

•

student-centred learning – meaning the intention to increase learner access to learning opportunities and control over the learning process. graduate qualities – meaning choice of teaching and learning arrangements to develop the qualities of a University of South Australia graduate. (For example, assessment within subjects is designed to gauge demonstration of a graduate quality or its component while evaluation processes for courses and subjects use the indicators of graduate qualities as reference points.)

Enabling concept •

flexible delivery – meaning provision of resources and application of technologies to create, store and distribute course content, enrich communication, and provide support and services to enable both more effective learning and better management of learning by the learner.

The two organising concepts, one about how learning best occurs and the other concerning the educational outcomes we have agreed to pursue, are inextricably linked.

Exploring the concept of flexibility 61 We cannot achieve the agreed qualities of a University of South Australia graduate unless our students have the opportunity to practise the skills and attitudes that underpin them. Of necessity, this can only happen in a learning environment that invites and encourages choice, reflection and the possibility of exercising personal responsibility over one’s own learning. Flexible delivery describes the conditions we seek to establish as professional educators to facilitate this student-managed progress to the outcomes we have identified as educationally, socially and professionally desirable.

How is this framework applied? Our teaching and learning strategy is built upon an intention to produce students with particular qualities in a teaching and learning environment that is student-centred and flexible. Our planning and review cycle, policies and guidelines, academic structures and support infrastructure operate in a complex set of interrelationships to achieve this. This is best illustrated diagramatically; see below.

ty uali nd q s w a cesse ie v o e r g, r ent p m nnin Pla prove im

Mission of the university

Access to equity within quality throughout

Academic Infrastructure university and faculty priorities, committee and advisory structure, school expertise, course and content approaches

Studentcentred learning for the professions

Mon inte itoring rnat o iona f natio n l en viro al and nme nts

Flexible delivery

Aca

Qualities of a UniSA graduate

Support infrastructure library, information technology services, flexible learning centre, registry, etc.

dem

ic p

olic

ies

and

guid

elin

es

Views of Outcomes scholarship reflect society's Views of needs and citizenship industry Views of requirements professionalism

ce

n bala the s out terest b a in ents older h gem Jud f stake o

Figure 4.1 The teaching and learning framework of the University of South Australia

62 Ted Nunan As can be seen from Figure 4.1, flexible delivery is central to the teaching and learning framework and is connected to both academic and support infrastructures. It provides an environment for studentcentred learning to achieve the qualities of a graduate of the university. Both of these organising concepts (student-centred learning and graduate qualities) are defined and their definition helps to interpret what the university understands by flexible delivery. This is a policy initiative, as the framework provides the basis for outlining changes in the teaching and learning environment of the university. Other sections of the document provide an analysis of performance in the current year, planning targets for the following year and general directions for a further three years. These directions involve explications of the organising and enabling concepts, and are translated into operational terms that impact upon all courses and all teaching and support staff of the university. The framework has been approved by university processes and its targets and directions provide its implementation with meaning. The university has devoted considerable attention to addressing the issues in the framework through an institution-wide planning day and the work of the professional development staff. This framework, used by the University of South Australia, is an example of how choices can be shaped by flexibility. The framework shapes choices made by the University and consumers in each of the following areas: the focus on outcomes rather than production inputs; consumer choice and competition; globalisation and market share; increasing use and dependence upon information technologies; and the commodification of knowledge.

Conclusion As we have seen, post-Fordist approaches imply a focus upon outcomes. The framework provides an opportunity to express outcomes as graduate attributes or qualities and to embed within the outcomes a balance of skills for personal empowerment and advantage and responsibilities related to personal actions that have public benefit. Thus, the qualities of graduates will include commitment to ethical behaviour and the social responsibility of being professional members of the community. The focus on learning outcomes rather than teaching performance provides policy and a practical focus for the concept of a ‘learning environment’, and appropriate forms of support for students to maximise their engagement in learning. Skill development through contextualised problem-solving and related

Exploring the concept of flexibility 63 cognitive learning is a goal of curricula and teaching. There is also a focus on student-centred research supervision where research issues are owned by students and where academics facilitate research processes rather than having students work as apprentices in research projects and areas owned by academics. The institution has generated policies in which quality assurance and improvement in all areas involve student feedback data. The recognition of prior learning and experience involves judgements of the extent to which a graduate quality has already been achieved. In the area of consumer choice, flexible learning is about providing appropriate educational experiences for the diverse groups represented in the student population. One aspect of this is promoting inclusivity in the university’s curriculum and delivery mechanisms. The university also fosters the notion of the community as a consumer and stakeholder in the university and its graduates, thereby linking the university with activities of public benefit. If consumer choice and competition bring a customer-service culture, this is supported to the extent that it provides a way of breaking down the unequal power structures between teachers and students. The university, in promoting the notion of its service culture, shapes its structures and processes so that they cater for both students and staff as members of the university community. In relation to globalisation, the university has looked at internationalisation of the curriculum with the inclusion of cross and multicultural impacts upon how knowledge is produced and legitimated. The university acknowledges that a commitment to globalisation is demonstrated in the ways in which the university values and treats indigenous students and the cultural experiences they bring to the institution. Globalisation is seen as a two-way process and at a local level involves ‘equal’ exchange arrangements to facilitate students undertaking studies in other countries. Where it provides services for profit, it does so with collaborative and educative intent so that the service receiver becomes self-sustaining in those elements of the service that it chooses to embrace. In the area of computer–information-technology use the university acknowledges equity issues about access to technology and it attempts to address such issues as part of any developmental process. The use of information technologies is judged against criteria such as improving opportunities for the quality of interactions, and improving, through effective use of online delivery, equitable access by students to university resources (such as software, library holdings and staff), administrative systems, subjects and courses.

64 Ted Nunan Commodification of knowledge is seen as a means of providing a greater density of learning resources for teaching and learning. These resources also underpin external studies and distance education, providing flexibility of time and place in the delivery of courses. The modularisation of courses, which is often a necessary condition for commodification, is seen as a desirable way of increasing student choice within particular curriculum constraints. The University of South Australia example illustrates how flexible delivery and flexible learning can be defined in educationally sound ways to help shape desirable responses to change. The educational stakes are high. Flexible delivery and flexible learning have the potential to intensify market and ‘fast capitalist’ values which, according to Connell (1998: 94) are ‘likely to lead to education that is narrow and unjust’. On the other hand, it is possible to acknowledge realities of globalisation and changes in information technologies and shape educationally defensible programmes which strive for just and socially responsible outcomes. In the next chapter Viktor Jakupec considers how universities and other tertiary education providers can pursue such different flexible strategies, in response to political, cultural and technological change. Without an adequate analysis of the term ‘flexible’, however, institutions and teachers may drift into a confusion of contradictory practices and educationally unsound programmes, which benefit neither individuals nor society.

References Bagguley, P. (1991) ‘Post-Fordism and enterprise culture: flexibility, autonomy and changes in economic organisation’, in R. Keat and N. Abercrombie (eds) Enterprise Culture, London: Routledge. Connell, B. (1998) ‘Schools, markets, justice: education in a fractured world’, in A. Reid (ed.) Going Public: Education Policy and Public Education in Australia, Adelaide: Australian Curriculum Studies Association in association with the Centre for the Study of Public Education at the University of South Australia. Edwards, R. (1997) Changing Places? Flexibility, Lifelong Learning and a Learning Society, London: Routledge. Evans, T. (1995) ‘Globalisation, post-Fordism and open and distance education’, Distance Education, 16, 2: 256–269. Gee, J. and Lankshear, C. (1995) ‘The New Work Order: critical language awareness and “fast capitalism texts” ’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 16, 1: 5–19. Keat, R. (1991) ‘Introduction: starship Britain or universal enterprise’, in R. Keat and N. Abercrombie (eds) Enterprise Culture, London: Routledge.

Exploring the concept of flexibility 65 Kenway, J., Bigum, C. and Fitzclarence, L. (1992) ‘Marketing education in the post-modern age’, paper delivered to the American Association for Research in Education Conference, San Francisco. Latchem, C. (1997) ‘A global perspective on flexible delivery’, paper presented at the NUFFIS Seminar on Virtual Mobility: New Technologies and Internationalism, www.eaie,nl/ITHE/latchem.html: 1–17. Luke, T. ( 1997) ‘Discourse and discipline in the digital domain: political economy in the virtual university’, New Zealand Internet Institute, www.nzii.org.nz/Papers/Tim_luke/virtual_uni Lundin, R. (1998) ‘Flexible delivery of continuing education: models, issues and trends’, www.usask.ca/dlc/Context.html MacFarlane A. (1992) Teaching and Learning in an Expanding Higher Education System, Edinburgh: The Committee of Scottish University Principals. Marginson, S. (1997) Educating Australia: Government, Economy and Citizen since 1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCann, D., Christmass, J., Nicholson, P. and Stuparich, J. (1998) Educational Technology in Higher Education, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Nunan, T. (1996) ‘Flexible delivery – what is it and why is it a part of current educational debate? Different approaches: theory and practice in higher education’, Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, pp. 595–600. Rudich, K. (1998) ‘Reliable market intelligence for distance education’, DEOSNEEWS, 8, 8 at www.edu.psu.edu /A CSDE/ Rumble, G. (1995) ‘Labour market theories and distance education III: PostFordism – the way forward?’, Open Learning, 10, 3: 25–42. Scott, P. (1995) The Meanings of Mass Higher Education, Bristol: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Stevens, K. (1996) ‘Have the shifting sands of Fordism resulted in ground lost or ground gained for distance education?’, Distance Education, 17, 2,247–2,266. Taylor, P.G., Lopez, L. and Quadrelli, C. (1996) Flexibility, Technology and Academics’ Practices: Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Higher Education Division, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Tinkler, D., Smith, T., Elliyard, P. and Cohen, D. (1994) ‘Effectiveness and potential of state of the art technologies in the delivery of higher education’, Occasional Papers Series, Higher Education Division, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. —— Lepani, B. and Mitchell, J. (1996) Education and Technology Convergence: Commissioned Report No. 43, National Board of Employment Education and Training, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

66 Ted Nunan West, R. (Chair) (1998) Learning for Life: Final Report, Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Yetton, P. and Associates (1997) Managing the Introduction of Technology in the Delivery and Administration of Higher Education, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Higher Education Division, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

5

The politics of flexible learning Opportunities and challenges in a globalised world Viktor Jakupec

The future that we might imagine for tertiary and higher education and training as a manifestation of Western society today is markedly different from what we imagined some ten years ago. The social, cultural and political changes which have occurred in the last decade have moved the concept of education and training well beyond the traditional parameters of university and college teaching and learning into the broader economic and political sphere. Entering this new sphere has made it necessary for the tertiary education and training sectors to change their role, purpose and modus operandi (Coaldrake and Stedman 1998). The traditional boundaries between tertiary and higher education, and the privileged position held by tertiary institutions as places of learning, have come under scrutiny. Indeed, so too has the whole culture of education and training – in particular, how, where and for what purposes learning can and should take place (Readings 1996). As Haughey in Chapter Two, and Paul in Chapter Three have shown us, new concepts such as flexible learning, workplace learning and distributed learning have emerged, either in competition or in parallel with established concepts of education and training – thus broadening existing educational provisions (and types of providers). In this chapter I examine some of the changes that have occurred in Western societies in recent decades. I will consider the connections between social (including education and training) policies and the economics and politics that govern or influence current tertiary education and training. I will also question the way we understand education and training and explore some of the opportunities and challenges arising from the current context. For unless we understand the social, cultural and political forces at work, we are powerless to deal with the implications of change. We will remain powerless

68 Viktor Jakupec unless we look critically at the existing notions, concepts and ideas that shape these changes.

Understanding the changes At a basic political level, the recent changes in many countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) can be ascribed to the demise of the Keynesian Welfare State ideology and the rise of the neo-conservative economic rationalist ideology. These ideological changes have occurred within a relatively short time-frame – the two decades from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. According to the OECD (1983; 1985; 1986; 1997) reports during this period, a number of governments developed and implemented policies that steer universities away from elite towards mass education (Bargh et al. 1996). Governments have also reacted to the changes by developing policies that align tertiary education and training with national economic needs (Gilbert 1996). This is quite a dramatic change from the policies of the preceding decades of the 1960s and 1970s, when education and training were seen as political catalysts for social equality and mobility. There is one characteristic of tertiary education and training policies that is consistent from 1960s through to the 1990s, however, which is that they focus on access (although from different points of view). In the 1970s, the focus of tertiary education and training was on social justice issues and promoting access to higher and tertiary education for people from disadvantaged socio-economic groups, who were under-represented in universities and colleges. In the 1990s, the same characteristic is firmly established within an economic rationalist agenda – promoting access for economic purposes (Reid 1996). The new policies have brought about change at a socio-cultural level such that tertiary education and training are now seen as contributing to the nation’s economic agenda – at the expense of the traditional value of education as a social equaliser. With the advent of this economic rationalist agenda, universities and colleges are seen by many as business enterprises. Education and training policies that have emerged in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s reflect epochal endings and new beginnings. This in turn has brought about new understandings and perceptions of what tertiary and higher education ought to be and how they are connected with economic developments in the context of globalisation, increasing competitiveness and the creation of a mobile and flexible information and knowledge society.

Flexible learning in a globalised world 69 Globalisation is a major aspect of the changed world environment in which education and training now takes place. Globalisation challenges our established views on ‘knowledge production’; it removes learning from a traditionally stable position to a far more flexible idea of the ‘accumulation of new knowledge’. Both globalisation and the flexible accumulation of knowledge have been made possible through two main interrelated historical occurrences. First, time and space have been compressed as a result of rapid developments in communication and information technologies. Second, there has been an overlapping of economic, political and social cultures and cross currents since the collapse of the communist bloc and socialist market economies (see Margaret Haughey in Chapter Two). Many of the recent economic rationalist changes in tertiary education and training are characterised by concepts such as ‘flexible learning’ or are understood as the proliferation of information and computer technologies (ICTs). In fact these two are often seen as synonymous. Both ICTs and the concept of flexibility can be found in higher education, tertiary education and training, workplace-based learning and in human resource development (HRD) environments. Flexible learning occurs in many different forms and uses a variety of educational technologies. Flexibility, or the need for flexible learning and delivery, by its own definition, affects and changes what counts as (useful and relevant) knowledge at any given time and in what is now a global space. Thus flexibility of learning and the flexibility to learn in a rapidly changing global work environment are some of the defining features of globalisation. It is not surprising then that education and training in universities, colleges and learning organisations – supported by social and economic networks, political structures and information flows – are increasingly being instituted along international lines with an emphasis on flexible global participation, rather than on the traditional national foci and interests. It is argued in the OECD and other countries that a purely domestic or national education and training market is being made obsolete by the increasingly widespread use of ICTs. Education and training organisations are seen as producers and service providers in a global knowledge industry. According to this argument, once learning materials and learning support infrastructures are developed for dissemination through ICTs, learning can be ‘sold’ like any other product and service to the world at large. From this perspective, the education and training sector can be seen by governments, employees and employer interest groups as a fast-growing commercial services sector playing a dynamic part in the global economy. Such a view is

70 Viktor Jakupec supported by government policies, which offer unique opportunities and challenges for universities, colleges and other education providers (as we shall see later in this chapter) – as well as for inhouse corporate training and Human Resource Development (HRD). The political rhetoric of economic rationalism suggests that education and training providers are the source of the ‘new knowledge’ that will be needed by tomorrow’s workforce. If the process of global enrichment is to continue unabated, providers will need to contribute to the development of what might be called ‘global knowledge workers’, not only within the traditional setting of university and college campuses but also in the workplace and at home. This requires not only seeking new forms of collaboration between the various stakeholders but also new ways of providing access to information and knowledge. In order to address these challenges, universities, colleges, employers and other training providers have turned to ‘flexible learning’ in its many and varied forms. As Nunan has indicated in Chapter Four, flexible learning is not only seen as another form of ‘delivery’ but also as an agent for changing the context in which tertiary education and training institutions operate and how knowledge is ‘constructed’. It is not surprising then, as Evans in Chapter Twelve and Usher in Chapter Thirteen both explain, that flexible learning and what it represents provokes a diverse response from different educational settings, institutions and organisations. This is one reason why one is unlikely to find a comprehensive exposé of the historical and institutional circumstances of flexible learning’s ascendancy. Flexible learning is seen by many – politicians, employers, employees, individuals and a variety of interest groups – as a phenomenon that goes far beyond its specific applications as practised in universities, colleges, industry and HRD settings. Drawing on recent reports concerning higher education in Australia (West 1997, 1998) and the United Kingdom (Dearing 1997), flexible learning can be seen as an economic, political and social tool for the production and reproduction of a global community. As Garrick argues in Chapter Fourteen, the ‘intellectual’ currency of flexible learning is located within the capacious map of social, cultural and technological change, called globalisation, which is today shaping societies around the world.

Politics, globalisation and flexible learning Educational policy-makers in all spheres – public and private enterprise, and tertiary and higher education and training institutions – are

Flexible learning in a globalised world 71 facing new challenges. These challenges are created by the demand for ‘internationalisation’ and the imposition of ‘international interests’ on national politics and policies, both from inside and outside policy-making organisations. This undermines certain aspects of organisational autonomy and perhaps even national sovereignty and subsequently it impacts on the economic agenda that links education and training to the economic performance of the nation. For example, the political rhetoric in Australia and UK has been, over the last decade, that universities must be more closely linked to the national economic interests (Jakupec 1996; Marginson 1993). However, the ideology of globalisation recognises only global, not national, interests. Thus a national economic sovereignty is put in question. Without the necessary national sovereignty, a government has little control over its own higher and tertiary education providers (Marginson 1997). They become organisations that need to be independent of government policies and reconstitute themselves as economically driven organisations. This puts them in danger of losing their ‘academic’ autonomy. The effects of globalisation, which is another form of ‘internationalisation’, on national policy have a flow-on effect on other institutions and economic entities. The systems of policy-making will have to adjust if governments and their agencies, including government-funded organisations and private enterprise, want to function effectively in a global policy environment. The question of course is what all this means for the various stakeholders. The simple answer is that it provides them with new opportunities and challenges – but such an answer is not sufficient. In this section I wish to look at some examples of how governments are positioning themselves through their educational policies in the global economy. There are no perfect answers or quick-fix solutions for the complex issues and problems surrounding globalisation. My aim in this chapter is to identify some important issues and concepts with which we, as stakeholders in education, must come to grips. Globalisation as political concept ‘Globalisation’ is broadly referred to in the relevant literature as a political, cultural or economic phenomenon (Kayman 1997; George 1994). The interplay of the political, the cultural and the economic in the context of globalisation, however, blurs national, cultural, economic and political boundaries. For example, globalisation as a cultural phenomenon is couched in ideas of consumerism. In education

72 Viktor Jakupec and training, the problematics of globalisation are characterised by increasing consumption and the influence of information technology, cyberspace and ‘McDonaldization’ (Ritzer 1993). In politics, globalisation is described as the growth of ‘governance without government’. Recent Australian experience illustrates the point well. First, in Australia there is an absence of new policies in tertiary and higher education and, in part, in training. That is, although the Australian Federal Government has commissioned a report into higher education (West 1997; 1998) to undertake a review of the higher education sector, it has neither endorsed nor accepted in part or in full the policy recommendations proposed by the West Committee. There appears to be a ‘policy of not having a policy’ or a prima-facie case of governance without government. The West report, according to Kemp (1998: 1), ‘lays the groundwork for a vigorous, informed and wide ranging debate about the future of tertiary education in Australia’. Second, traditional federal government funding for tertiary education and training is decreasing and individual institutions are required to find and compete for other sources of income. Third, universities and colleges are being encouraged to become global institutions (West 1997). As Ross Paul pointed out earlier, as an economic phenomenon globalisation is characterised by deregulation and free-market enterprise. To use Australia again as an example, successive federal governments have progressively deregulated the fee structure of tertiary education and training so that individual institutions and providers are increasingly exposed to free-market forces and must compete for students on a national and international level. At the political-ideological level globalisation is the product of a theory, often referred to as neo-liberalism, in which ‘the market’ is the central organising principle for society in which economic growth is paramount. Free-market conditions incorporating free trade, perfect competition and economic efficiency underpin the ideological constructs of globalisation. Nationally, progress and success are measured by growth in gross national product (GNP) and the state of the financial markets. In order to succeed, nations, industries, companies, educational institutions and training organisations must compete with each other in the global (un)even playing field. This competition and the quest for growth require resources, especially well-educated and skilled human resources. This is one of the points at which globalisation intersects with education and training. As a politico-economic phenomenon, globalisation appears as a shift from a world of discrete national economies to a global

Flexible learning in a globalised world 73 economy in which services, production and financial and cultural capital, such as knowledge and information, become internationally accessible. In this shift, national organisations become multinational and then transnational companies, with vast economic and political powers. Likewise, universities extend their services internationally and then transnationally. As Edwards and Tait point out in Chapter Eight, governments, like universities and other education and training providers, are increasingly being influenced by the international policies forged by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Word Bank, G7 summits, and by trading blocs such as the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), the European Union and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) (Hirst and Thompson 1996). The consequence of this is that universities cannot act within national boundaries or national interests only, but have to adjust to and, at times, respond directly to policies of global and international agencies and organisations. Globalisation, flexible learning and ICTs: some problematics Like globalisation, flexible learning is a consequence as well as a cause of the proliferation of ICTs. Both phenomena are driven by dramatic advances in ICTs, including growing access to computermediated communication (CMC) and information networks such as the Internet. ICTs enable individuals and organisations to overcome the barriers of physical distance in a multitude of ways. Access to information through ICTs has had the effect of compressing time and space, as has interaction with people across regional and national borders. Universities, colleges, other education and training providers and HRD departments of national and international organisations can all provide education and training directly to individuals, independent of place and time considerations, as well as through collaborative ventures with other educational institutions and industry. With these phenomena a new framework for social policies (including education and training policies) has developed. Although these policies affect individuals, the policy-making framework is far more sensitive to international influences and emerging concepts of global ‘knowledge production’ in which the strategies for the ‘accumulation of new knowledge’ are required to be more and more flexible.

74 Viktor Jakupec ICTs are one of the most important dimensions of globalisation and flexible learning. They are a vehicle for flexible ‘knowledge production’ and the ‘accumulation of new knowledge’, and as such they have an impact on both work and learning environments. Setting aside the fact that many institutions and organisations have already embraced ICTs as the dominant mode of flexible delivery, we must understand that ICTs are only one dimension of the globalisation of education and training – there are in fact many ambient factors that are creating change in today’s work and learning environments. It is difficult none the less to isolate ICTs from education, training and other everyday settings, such as the workplace. Literature on education and training, as well as workplace learning, HRD management and organisational change, points out a number of unresolved problems. There is still some uncertainty about how to evaluate the impact of ICTs on learning, skills acquisition, and organisational structure, leadership and autonomy. However, what is emerging in today’s society is a collaborative working/ learning environment in which flexibility, the decentralisation of knowledge acquisition and the empowerment of learners have become integral to the organisation of learning and work. These changes are not only a result of the use of ICTs. They have been brought about because of a change in political vision. The new vision focuses on the flexible development of human resources within a time- and space-compressed environment, and is thus a part of an overall vision of globalisation. The trend towards globalisation and access to ICTs is not always seen as advantageous by governments, universities, colleges and other organisations. There is fear that globalisation will undermine the political, financial and social sovereignty of the nation state. These fears are potentially justified, if sovereignty is defined as the capacity to exert control without interference from the outside. Governance without global interference has become difficult to sustain, however. By abdicating their traditional duties of governance, national governments are transferring some decision-making to the international arena. At the national level governments are attempting to decentralise public administration and to devolve responsibilities and decision-making to individual organisations. Governments are thus creating a new multilevel policy system. In essence, globalisation and its manifestations are making not only economic borders, but also borders of polity, policy and politics, increasingly difficult for governments to define, maintain and thus control.

Flexible learning in a globalised world 75 Governments cannot control ICTs, for example, nor the flow of information that they facilitate. ICTs and CMC have effectively removed the ability of countries, companies, and education and training institutions to isolate themselves from the outside world. Organisations and individuals can gain access to and disseminate information, be it political, cultural or educational, with an unprecedented ease. It is also increasingly evident that international collaboration between governments, as well as between tertiary education and training institutions, provides opportunities for the advancement of organisations and individuals – in the case of this argument through access to a flexible learning environment. Nevertheless, we should remember arguments such as Edwards’ (1994), who suggests that globalisation can foster sovereignty and autonomy at a local level. In this way individual identities of various kinds can be affirmed, which in turn provides a framework for developing a global configuration of equanimity instead of superseding differences. It would be naive to assume that the benefits arising from globalisation and ICTs will be readily available to all. Individual universities, colleges or training companies and individuals will not be able to meet the challenges of globalisation without making significant adjustments. These adjustments will probably be needed at two levels. First, there is the need for organisations to adjust to new structures and decision-making processes in relation to government policies on tertiary and higher education and training. In part, this will depend on the ability of governments to formulate and implement policies reflecting national interests within the broader context of the global village. Second, in order to be successful individual tertiary and higher education and training institutions and other providers will need to examine the impact of globalisation on national and international policy-making processes. They will need to analyse the political interplay of the various stakeholders influencing policy-making decisions in order to protect and strengthen the basic cultural, social and intellectual underpinning of a learning environment. A cautionary note on flexible knowledge and skills acquisition The main stakeholders in education currently seem to be working towards a long-term strategy, with little regard for the cultural, social and intellectual values of education. The emphasis is on providing

76 Viktor Jakupec continuous and lifelong learning opportunities for individuals in order to address the (perceived or real) increase in demand for a highly skilled and educated labour force. The argument is a purely economic one, however – an increase in the supply of highly skilled personnel will lead to national economic growth and greater equality of income distribution in the market. But, as market conditions change, new skills and knowledge will be required at a rapidly increasing rate. Thus in the future no-one will be able to practise their profession or occupation for their entire life in the way they initially learned it. Thus, one way of facilitating the continuous demand for new and flexible knowledge and skills acquisition is to provide a flexible learning environment. Here is the cautionary note: because of the need for highly skilled ‘workers’ and their demand for new and flexible knowledge, there is a corresponding need to develop and implement policies that support this at governmental, institutional and organisational levels. Without clearly articulated policies, governments, organisations and tertiary and higher education and training providers will themselves be unable to secure any long-term advantages of globalisation. Neither the private nor public sectors will be able to translate such advantages into economic benefits, especially if education and training is left to free-market forces. A reduction in public expenditure for higher education, R&D and training implemented by some OECD countries is therefore a feeble response to the challenges presented by globalisation. Countries, like institutions, can only maintain and increase their economic advantage if they increase their intellectual capacity and their pool of highly qualified personnel. As the use of ICTs and CMC networks continues to expand into the daily conduct of research and teaching, many aspects of the physical and organisational environments in which fundamental academic principles have operated will change (Kling 1996). It is important, therefore, to distinguish among the principles, policies and practices governing the opportunities and challenges for higher education. Higher education’s commitment to unfettered, free inquiry, critical examination and the free dissemination of information and ideas transcends changes in technology and organisational behaviour. At the same time, many policies and practices governing the discovery, stewardship and dissemination of knowledge have been and will continue to be affected by changing educational technologies and the transition to a ‘knowledge economy’ and ‘learning society’. To compete in a knowledge economy, nations (perhaps more than ever) will depend on a highly educated workforce and access to the

Flexible learning in a globalised world 77 products of research. Tertiary and higher education and training institutions play a critical role in this process and must respond in ways that serve new and expanding interests that exist beyond the simplistic concerns of economic rationalism.

Opportunities and challenges From my discussion so far, it is evident that the established educational practices of teaching, research, scholarship and public service in universities have of late been exposed to close scrutiny and rapid change. There are opportunities now to redefine and more fully address the student needs that education and training institutions were originally established to serve, and these opportunities are governed by the ideologies of globalisation and technological advances in ICTs and CMC. ICTs and CMC are supporting the development of new teaching and learning strategies and research methodologies, including new forms of collaboration among teachers, learners, researchers and industry world-wide. This may mean that traditional education and training providers have to rethink the historical boundaries that have divided the activities associated with the campus, the workplace and the home. These boundaries are increasingly becoming blurred for a number of different reasons, including the fact that the use of ICTs by individuals and organisations is transcending the limitations of time and place. As we have seen, the challenges faced by education and training organisations are due to changing global politico-economic and politico-social phenomena. West (1998), Dearing (1997) and an OECD report (1997) explain the nature of the challenges, which can be summarised as follows: •

•

• • • •

globalisation is placing demands on governments, higher education and tertiary training sectors, as well as industry to adjust to and work within an economic environment characterised by increasing integration; labour-market changes in which individuals, education and training organisations and corporations need to focus on the requirements of a learning and information society; emergence and increased importance of ICTs; social and cultural changes brought about by globalisation and ICTs; changes in demographic patterns; shifts in funding for higher and tertiary education and training.

78 Viktor Jakupec Economic opportunities and challenges Successive governments in many OECD countries have highlighted the importance of the above factors for education, training and, indeed, national economic survival. Consequently they have influenced education and training policies. In a global education and training environment, the factors that will determine the economic future of countries and their education providers will be the quality, relevance, scale, cost-effectiveness and intellectual, social and cultural values that the tertiary education and training sectors provide. But perhaps this has always been the case. The challenge today then is the commitment of each government and institution to providing the population its serves with the opportunities for flexible lifelong education and training. In Australia, a number of universities have, for example, taken a purely instrumental view of the education they provide (Jakupec 1996). As Rowan describes in Chapter Nine, some of these universities have substituted quantity for quality, without recognising the importance of core human and intellectual values. Even from an economic rationalist point of view, it must be apparent that quality of intellectual endeavour is a major contributor to an effective and well-functioning society. The important point here is for education and training institutions to understand that the competitive economic future of industry and commerce depends in part on the ability of education and training institutions to generate knowledge in a variety of settings. These may be as diverse as the home or workplace and use a variety of flexible learning approaches (Garrick 1998; Laurillard 1993). One of the opportunities arising from increased integration and flexibility is that universities and colleges are free to locate their teaching and learning operations, research and administration wherever in the world best suits them. While a university’s headquarters may well be in its country of origin, it can provide its services in a global arena using a variety of technologies. These are not passing changes. They will create additional opportunities and challenges for education providers, such as: • •

offering high quality, relevant tertiary and higher education and training (this will be a key factor in attracting students); offering opportunities for lifelong learning, using flexible and creative teaching and learning strategies, to individuals and organisations that are developing and maintaining up-to-date

Flexible learning in a globalised world 79

•

•

administrative, technological, academic and entrepreneurial processes; meeting the aspirations of individuals for initial and lifelong education and training in a variety of settings and jobs over a working life and beyond, and providing a constant pool of graduates who have high levels of relevant intellectual and technical skills; adjusting to a transformed labour market, including (a) increases in the proportion of women entering the labour market as highly skilled and educated personnel, (b) increases in the part-time and fractional labour force with discretional time for study and training and (c) increased demand for professional and skilled jobs and a shift from a manufacturing and primary industry base to a service oriented economy.

Given these conditions, universities, colleges and other tertiary education and training providers have the opportunity to become stronger international institutions, offering their programmes to students on a global basis. What is at stake is the flexible delivery of education and training programmes such that they cater to the requirements of the learner by using a variety of technologies. To achieve this, however, education and training organisations must change their organisational structures, their decision-making processes and their approach to lifelong and workplace-based learning. On the other hand, it is important to recognise the frailty of attempts to forecast student, industry and employer demands in the long term. The recent experience of some Australian universities shows that failing to accurately forecast demand for places (because of decreases in previously unmet demand) can lead to difficulties in filling government-funded places. Flexible and lifelong education and training is likely to keep growing in all spheres. Employers will probably want to increase their employees’ involvement in education and training. This might be undertaken in-house or it might be commissioned from external providers. They might enter into partnerships with universities and colleges. Employers need to understand that the range of educational and training needs cannot be met entirely by in-house training. This provides opportunities for universities, colleges and other education providers to coordinate their approaches and offer supportive learning environments for individual learners. This is especially important as students of the future look to universities and colleges to offer more flexible access to learning in the workplace and at

80 Viktor Jakupec home, and at times convenient to them. This can enable combining learning with work. Universities and colleges now have the opportunity to play a major role in empowering individuals throughout their working life to renew their knowledge and skills on a regular basis. For such ventures to be effective, universities and colleges must be responsive, adaptive and proactive. Social and cultural opportunities and challenges So far, I have addressed only the economic opportunities and challenges created by changes in education and training. Equally important, however, are the social and cultural implications of these changes. This could be seen as the proverbial Achilles heel of the political agenda that has been driving tertiary and higher education and training over the last twenty years. There is increasing scepticism in some OECD countries concerning the ability of governments to solve social problems. In many respects we no longer share a set of social values and cultural norms (Jakupec 1996; Jakupec and Nicoll 1994). The rate and extent of transmission of a collective culture through the press, multimedia, broadcasts and telecasts, and more recently through CMC, have brought representations of different cultural experiences and values to a mass audience. The cultural experiences that were previously only available to the elite are now found in many households. In the 1960s, universities were seen as the greatest possible manifestation of a cultured and civilised society. Universities and colleges were seen as guardians of the culture and knowledge that they transmitted. Today universities are seen as ‘industries’ (West 1998; GAL 1997). Interestingly enough, despite the drive by some to make or depict universities and colleges as ‘industries’, they are still held in high respect, especially as they are now seeking cooperation with industries and employers and developing flexibility of learning for individuals. Many other government-funded institutions have not been able to adjust to change with the same degree of success as the tertiary and higher education and training sector. In a social context, the nature of the relationship between traditional tertiary and higher education institutions and industry, employers and students has changed. There is now a greater focus on recognising the culture of customers and clients. Individuals and organisations perceive themselves as consumers of publicly funded services and perceive universities and colleges as providing these

Flexible learning in a globalised world 81 services. There are expectations that performance indicators and other managerial applications will be used to codify services. We should not be mislead by these naive perceptions, however. A far more sophisticated argument is that individual students and organisations see themselves as members of a learning community and see organisations as members of a learning society, rather than simply as customers or clients and providers. Future social and cultural changes will be as difficult to predict as economic changes. One could argue that the current trends will continue. One could make a correlation between tertiary and higher education participation rates and the socio-economic status and socio-cultural background of the individual. However as tertiary and higher education and training are perceived less as the preserve of the elite, there may be less understanding about what cultural values they should seek to preserve. The greater the number of people undertaking initial and continuing tertiary and higher education and training, the greater the impact that universities and colleges could have on culture and society. The question is: will education providers take the opportunity to have a positive impact on society, by providing flexible ways for a diverse student body to pursue quality lifelong studies? Hopefully the answer will be yes, but this will only be possible if education providers are willing to go beyond a merely instrumental view of educational provision. The challenge for universities, colleges and other providers is to become more open and accessible, not only to the local community but also to national and global communities. Increasing diversity in the modes of delivery and teaching mean that more individuals will take advantage of education and training opportunities. And the greater the flexibility, the greater the potential for collaboration with employers, industry and commerce. Local and regional communities (individuals, organisations, firms, corporations and other interest groups) have traditionally sought to establish strong links with their local colleges (Jakupec and McTaggart 1996). This of course will continue; however the challenge is to forge similar relationships with global communities. For many education and training providers the motivation to seek out global alliances and to provide global services will be largely economic. For other institutions, however, strengthening global relationships through joint educational provision and use of facilities will provide opportunities to preserve and foster cultural life, knowledge and scholarship.

82 Viktor Jakupec

Conclusion As each of the contributors to this part of the book have indicated in various ways, globalisation has the potential to offer enormous economic opportunities for universities, colleges and other education and training providers. It entails great social and cultural risks, which can be addressed through appropriate tertiary and higher education and training policies. Globalisation demands mobility and thus flexibility, not only from individuals but also from educational and training providers, employers, industry and other relevant interest groups. Defensive reactions from universities and colleges in the form of ‘circumspect preterism’ are not the answer – and nor is ‘euphoric technicism’ with its blind belief in ICTs (Evans et al. 1997). Although it is important for tertiary and higher education and training institutions to incorporate ICTs into their educational processes, with the aim of self-improvement and self-renewal, in itself this is not sufficient. As Haughey suggests in Chapter Two, there is a continuing need for education and training organisations to develop and maintain their public obligations and to take part in national and global dialogues that reconceptualise their place in society. Only within the framework of redefining social roles will education and training institutions be able to forge new relationships with other public and private organisations. The proliferation of new industries and new social structures based on global economics and digital technologies makes a re-examination of opportunities and challenges for education and training organisations necessary. These opportunities and challenges are not themselves firmly established; they are subject to continuing change and thus require increasing flexibility. As changes take place, universities, colleges and many new and established political, social, cultural and economic interest groups will try to exert pressure on education and training institutions and sectors. Each interest group will attempt to maximise its relative advantage over other interest groups and require universities and colleges to exploit new educational technologies, learning flexibility, and more flexible access, curricula and educational services to meet its needs. Higher education institutions play an important role in these processes, as they are equipped to undertake not only basic research into socio-cultural and socio-economic changes but also into the advancement of knowledge and technology, the analysis of economic and political ideology, and polity, politics and policy. Universities must be proactive in performing these tasks, because one of their

Flexible learning in a globalised world 83 main functions is to take part in the development and transfer of knowledge, science and technology to the public and private sectors. As such, universities and other institutions of higher education are primary originators and consumers of intellectual property, services and products, including ICTs. It is against this background that universities, colleges, other public and private education and training providers, employers, industry and other interest groups must examine the aims, functions, benefits, strengths and weaknesses of flexible learning in a global society. It is, of course, impossible to predict future developments. None the less, institutions would be well advised to maintain flexible approaches to education and training. Flexible learning then will force institutions not only to look outwardly but also inwardly in the pursuit of developing flexible learning strategies for the future.

References Bargh, C., Scott, P. and Smith, D. (1996) Governing Universities: Changing the Culture?, Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Coaldrake, P. and Stedman, L. (1998) On the Brink: Australia’s Universities Confronting the Future, St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Dearing, R. (Chair) (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: Report of the National Committee, London: National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Edwards, R. (1994) ‘From a distance? Globalisation, space–time compression and distance education’, Open Learning, 9, 3: 9–17. Evans, T., Jakupec, V. and Thompson D. (1997) ‘Introduction: communication and research in open and distance education’, in T. Evans, V. Jakupec and D. Thomson (eds) Research in Distance Education, 4, Geelong: Deakin University Press. GAL (Global Alliance Limited) (1997) ‘Australian higher education in an era of mass customisation’, in R.C. West (Chair) Learning for Life: Policy Discussion Paper, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Garrick, J. (1998) Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human Resource Development, London: Routledge. Gilbert, A.D. (1996) ‘Prophets, monks and pragmatists: exploring the ideas of a modern university’, in I. Veit-Brause (ed.) Shaping the New University, Geelong: Science in Society Centre, Deakin University. George, J. (1994) Discourse of Global Politics; A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalisation in Question, Cambridge: Polity Press. Jakupec, V. (1996) ‘A critical analysis of Australian government policies on distance education in the 1980s’, in T. Evans and D. Nation (eds)

84 Viktor Jakupec Opening Education: Policies and practices in Open and Distance Education, London: Routledge. —— and McTaggart, R. (1996) Commercialisation and Flexible Delivery: Access in Vocational Education and Training, Geelong: Deakin Centre for Education and Change, Deakin University. —— and Nicoll, K. (1994) ‘Crises in Australian distance education’, Higher Education Review, 26, 2: 17–32. Kayman, E.F. (1997) Globalisation, State, Identity/Difference: Towards a Critical Social Theory of International Relations, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press. Kemp, D. (1998) West Report Welcomed, Canberra: Media Release K26/98, Office of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 17 April 1998. Kling, R. (1996) Computerization and Controversy: Value, Conflicts and Social Choices, London: Academic Press. Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for Effective Use of Educational Technology, London: Routledge. Marginson, S. (1993) Education and Public Policy, Cambridge and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. —— (1997) ‘Limits of market reform: positional competition in Australian higher education’, in J. Sharpman and G. Harman (eds) Australia’s Future Universities, University of New England NSW: University of New England Press. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1983) Policies for Higher Education in the 1980s, Paris: OECD. —— (1985) Education in Modern Society, Paris: OECD. —— (1986) Education and Effective Economic Performance: A Preliminary Analysis, Paris: OECD. —— (1987) Universities Under Scrutiny, Paris: OECD. —— (1997) The Internationalisation of Higher Education, Paris: OECD. Readings, B. (1996) University in Ruins, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Reid, I. (1996) Higher Education or Education for Hire: Language and Values in Australian Universities, Rockhampton: Central Queensland University Press. Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonaldization of Society, Newbury Park: Pine Forge Press. West, R.C. (Chair) (1997) Learning for Life: Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Policy Discussion Paper, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. —— (1997) Learning for Life: Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Final Report, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Part II

Putting the theory to work

6

Reconfiguring institutional strategies for flexible learning and delivery John Bottomley

A starting point This chapter starts from the premise that education and training institutions in countries with advanced economies face a common set of challenges that stem from the economic, political and sociocultural change that has occurred since the early 1970s. Economic restructuring and public-sector reform have dominated the politics of many Western democracies for two decades or more. Political debate throughout the English-speaking world has had less to do with alternative visions for the future than with the ability of parties to manage the process of change. Probert (1994), commenting on the Australian scene, suggests that micro-economic reform, the restructuring of outdated industrial awards, tariff reduction, flexibility, flexibility and yet more flexibility have become the icons of both major parties. Much the same can be said of new Labour in the United Kingdom and the Democratic administration in the United States, as both are nominally of ‘the left’ yet embrace the marketoriented stances of their more ‘right-wing’ predecessors. With modest variations, policy responses throughout the developed world are thus fairly consistent (Castells 1991). A new economic order has, however, emerged and is characterised by: • • •

the progressive integration of national economies into an emerging global economy; the deregulation of national job markets; increasing levels of competition for local enterprises as national economies become increasingly open to overseas capital and import goods and services;

88 John Bottomley •

a change in the role of government to that of encouraging capital creation and economic productivity rather than that of acting as referee between the competing claims of capital and labour. (Harvey 1989; Probert 1994)

Parallelling these changes have been changes in public policy for higher education. Throughout the developed world, higher education systems have become key elements of state economic and human resource development strategies. Economic competitiveness is seen to depend on the productivity of capital and labour. Labour productivity in turn is seen as depending to no small degree on a skilled and flexible workforce with higher education playing a key role in the development, maintenance and enhancement of the skills of workers. In Australia this position is adopted, with variations, by both major political parties. In 1994 the position of the Australian Labour Party administration was: To secure a place among the first rank of nations and create prosperity and opportunity at home, Australia needs a highly skilled and flexible workforce. Improved education and training performance is part of our strategy to raise productivity levels and hence economic and employment growth. … We need to link our eduction and training programs more closely to the current needs of the labour market and to future employment opportunities. (Keating 1994: 89) The Minister for Employment, Education and Youth Affairs of the now conservative Australian Liberal–National Coalition government recently stated government expectations regarding higher education thus: We see education and training contributing to individual autonomy, social cohesion, a more democratic society and economic efficiency. We aim to ensure that education and training is both appropriate and effective; that it responds to contemporary realities and the changing environment and delivers the learning outcomes we expect of it. … I strongly endorse the view of the importance of higher education in enabling us to adjust democratically and competitively to the challenges of the global economy and the information society. (Kemp 1998)

Institutional strategies 89 Although the present government’s market-based neo-liberal policy for higher education is a sometimes confusing and opaque one of ‘steering from a distance’, higher education is arguably a key policy instrument of central government (Marginson 1997). Higher education has, as a consequence, been transformed by a drive for a near-universal post-compulsory education. This is evidenced through an increase in lifetime participation in higher education or vocational education and training which, in the Australian context, is currently estimated by the Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs to be over 70 per cent of the age group. The focus is on increased student and employer demand for programmes with clearly defined employment outcomes and through increasing levels of institutional accountability to students, employers and government.

Characteristics of mass higher education In the UK context, Peter Scott, writing in The Times Higher Education Supplement (1991a–d), suggests that the consequences, intellectual and otherwise, of the emergence of mass higher education are complex. The characteristics of mass higher education systems that are relevant in this context are, he suggests: •

• • •

• •

•

the increasing importance of non-traditional activities at the expense of traditional undergraduate and postgraduate programmes; an increasingly heterogeneous student body; the loss of the dominant position of the arts and science disciplines to the liberal, technical, caring and enterprise professions; the transformation of the university system from a self-referential, closed system to an outward-looking, open system in which universities are but a part of a more broadly constituted know ledge industry; an increasing reliance on the use of technology in the teaching function; an increase in the importance of targeted and special purpose funding and a consequent decline in the centrality of untied government block funding; and the transformation of the universities and their constituent faculties from collegial into managerial and bureaucratic entities.

Institutions have responded to these changed circumstances in many ways. Yetton and Associates (1997) suggest that as institutions seek

90 John Bottomley to react strategically to changed circumstances they have become increasingly differentiated by the manner in which they respond to six strategic issues: namely the quality and style of their teaching; the need to effect cost efficiencies; the demands of serving multiple campuses; increased competition for students; the needs of different types of students; and exploring the possibilities of inter-university (and I would add other institutional) collaboration (1997: x). Indeed, Bruce King in the next chapter in this book looks specifically at how different institutions respond to the need for new approaches to teaching and learning. Different institutions have made different choices resulting in a greater inter-institutional diversity within the higher education systems of the Western democracies than has heretofore been the case for any country outside the United States or Canada. Parallelling this increase in system diversity has been an increase in the complexity of individual institutions and programme mixes. Increased competition, increased levels of accountability to governments and employers and increasingly demanding students have resulted in an explosion of courses designed to meet the needs of the employment market. The seemingly contradictory result of the massification of higher education is not the emergence of a mass market for a limited number of courses, but rather the emergence of multiple niche markets, each with its own demands for narrowly tailored courses and programmes designed to provide graduates with the legup they need to find permanent and meaningful employment. This is the meaning of Scott’s observations that mass higher education is characterised by: the loss of the dominant position of the arts and science disciplines to the liberal, technical, caring and enterprise professions … [as] … an increasingly heterogeneous student body … [engage] increasing[ly] … [in] non-traditional activities at the expense of traditional undergraduate and postgraduate programmes (Scott 1991a, b, c, d) This programmatic complexity is parallelled by increasingly diverse and flexible delivery options. Off-campus study, online courses, modular curricula and so on have become central or minor aspects of programmes in many institutions. Such delivery strategies increase the complexity of higher educational institutions and in so doing significantly increase the demands made on institutional administrative systems and infrastructures – demands made in a climate of shrinking public support and increased accountability.

Institutional strategies 91

Reconciling increased complexity and expectations with declining resources Many institutions have looked to information and communications technologies to help bridge the gap between increased expectations and complexity on the one hand and shrinking real resources on the other. In administrative arenas, information systems are expected to deliver efficiency gains and to support rather than hinder the development of programmes that are offered in an increasing variety of ways intended to meet the particular needs of the niche market they serve. In the teaching and learning process, information and communications technologies are increasingly harnessed to give students convenient access to rich learning environments providing opportunities to actively engage with peers, teachers and learning resources. In short, many institutions have turned to the establishment of flexible learning systems as a strategic response to the changing circumstances in which they find themselves. The ways in which information technologies are harnessed to meet the needs of students, however, vary significantly between institutions. In some institutions they become an all-pervasive aspect of teaching and learning, as at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. In other institutions they are used to provide off-campus students with access to programmes initially designed for on-campus presentation. In some institutions the prime motivation is to realise efficiency gains, in others the enhancement of quality. Yetton and Associates note a variety of strategies for the adoption of information technology in Australian universities (Yetton and Associates 1997: x). I interpret their data rather differently than do these authors, as I am sceptical of their categorisation of strategies. Nevertheless, their point that information technologies can be harnessed by institutions for a variety of strategic purposes is reasonable. They correctly argue that such purposes have implications for an institution’s strategic approach to information management and information technology; for the nature of its human resource management practices; its budgeting and financial management practices, and possibly even its organisational structures. The strategic use of information and information systems A recent Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development report on the management of information strategies in higher

92 John Bottomley education discusses the manner in which universities can use information systems to achieve their strategic goals: Information technology and information systems may be used in higher education in a strategic way – they may contribute significantly to the strategic use and handling of information in order to achieve the strategic goals and objectives of a higher education institution … these strategies must emphasise information use and handling, and refer to the strategic issues in this context … they must deal with three challenges the higher education institutions are facing: the informational challenge, leading to more demanding information processing in primary (teaching and research) as well as in the managerial processes; the technological challenges, information technology bearing the potential in itself to revolutionise higher education as an information-intensive business; and finally the policy and financing challenge. (Frackmann 1996a: 13) This analysis suggests that institutions need to develop ‘layered’ information strategies with visions, goals and objectives for themselves with ‘information rich’ enterprises forming a top layer, supported by derivative visions, goals and objectives with regard to applications as a second layer, and plans for the development of appropriate technological and organisational infrastructure and institutional cultures forming a third layer (Frackmann 1996b: 45). The rest of this chapter looks at the manner in which three universities have approached the development of layered information strategies to help them to meet their strategic institutional goals. The universities discussed are different in many ways and as such provide a useful set of case studies through which to investigate the institution-wide implications of adopting flexible learning approaches to teaching and learning. They collectively illustrate the point that the strategic choices made by like institutions, in this case universities, have implications for institutional infrastructures, organisational arrangements and cultures. The institutions discussed are Deakin University in Victoria, Australia, the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada and Wake Forest University in North Carolina in the United States. Deakin University is a large multi-campus public university with a major off-campus programme and significant involvement in corporate and professional continuing education and training. In 1998 it

Institutional strategies 93 enrolled over 29,000 students of whom some 12,600 studied offcampus. In EFTSU (Equivalent Full-Time Student Unit) terms just under 30 per cent of its 19,400 EFTSUs studied off-campus. It enrolled a further 30,000 off-campus students in professional continuing education through its entrepreneurial arm. Deakin has a strategic objective to further develop as a university providing lifelong professional education in a wide range of vocations in both Australia and overseas (Deakin University 1998a). The University of British Columbia (UBC) is that Canadian province’s premier public ‘research’ university, with over Can$150m in annual competitive research funding. It has an on-campus enrolment of approximately 30,000, of whom some 6,500 are postgraduates. It has major enrolments in professional programmes, major on-campus and off-campus programmes in professional continuing education and a small off-campus programme in arts and sciences. It operates one major campus and a number of specialist medical, research and teaching facilities in other locations. Wake Forest University is a private liberal arts-oriented university with 3,700 undergraduate and 2,000 graduate and professional students in medicine, law, graduate management and research science. It attracts students with high school graduation scores and is ranked in the top thirty-five US research universities and private undergraduate colleges; 99 per cent of students are full time and 92 per cent reside on campus. The university operates from one main and one subsidiary medical campus. Collectively, these three universities reflect some of the diversity to be found within mass systems of higher education.

Using information technology to achieve strategic goals Earlier in the chapter, I suggested that institutional information strategies needed to be layered – with a top layer identifying visions, goals and objectives for themselves as ‘information rich’ enterprises. In this section we will look at institutional visions, goals and objectives for teaching and learning and the role of information technology therein. Visions, goals and objectives for teaching and learning at Wake Forest, British Columbia and Deakin Universities Motivation for the transformation of teaching and learning through the use of information technology at Wake Forest came from the university’s desire to maintain its high ranking within the US higher

94 John Bottomley education system – a high ranking achieved in terms of undergraduate education from its reputation for providing students with a high quality liberal arts education. Undergraduate education at Wake Forest is characterised by collaboration among learners; frequent student–faculty dialogue; prompt feedback on queries and assignments, encouraging student individual and group initiatives; the application of theory by staff and students to learning experiences and assignments, facilitating individual teaching; and the building of trustful student to student and student to academic staff relations (Brown 1998). In 1994 the university developed a vision for the provision of such an education which placed information technology at the centre of teaching and learning processes (Anderson 1998). This vision has subsequently transformed the undergraduate experience of Wake Forest students. This vision is essentially conservative, in as much as it is intended to preserve and maintain the quality of existing programmes offered to an established student recruitment base. The vision is one for the transformation of teaching practice – not for the transformation of programmes or of the student profile. Wake Forest will continue to be a medium-sized elite liberal arts university serving a high achieving school-leaver student body who live and study on campus. The vision for teaching and learning at UBC in 2008 is for flexible, highly interactive, research-based, active learner-centred education. The vision is one of enhanced learning outcomes – of increased quality rather than of greater efficiency. UBC president Martha Potts says: ‘We are not replacing professors, but their role may change somewhat. Professors might in some cases be more like coaches, so their role becomes even more central’ (Potts in McLeod 1998: 19). As at Wake Forest, the vision is essentially conservative – a vision for maintaining or enhancing the quality of existing programmes. It is not a vision for transforming the nature of the university. UBC will continue to be a research-oriented university offering campus-based undergraduate and professional teaching programmes to a student body drawn primarily from the high achieving school- and community college-leaver population of British Columbia. The situation at Deakin University is somewhat different. The key strategic objective for teaching and learning at Deakin is for the flexible delivery of lifelong professional learning in a range of vocational fields. The university aims to provide seamlessly integrated opportunities and programmes from pre-university, through undergraduate to postgraduate diploma and degree studies. These will frequently be

Institutional strategies 95 delivered through cooperative arrangements with government departments and agencies, professional societies, employers, unions and educational institutions, often off-campus or in the workplace. This is a vision that anticipates increased diversity in an already diverse student body and increased complexity in already complex delivery arrangements. Core objectives in The University Plan 1999–2000 are to ‘specialise in professional education, encompassing a broad spectrum of disciplines with flexible, national and international programs of study’, and to ‘enhance and diversify the student and client profile’ (Deakin University 1998b: 6). The achievement of this vision for teaching and learning requires the university to embrace a vision for the use of information technology to support teaching and learning that is fundamentally different from that of Wake Forest or UBC. Deakin must develop information systems to support a wide variety of teaching models – teaching models appropriate for programmes offered over a wide range of educational levels, in a wide variety of settings both on and off-campus and embracing flexible enrollments. Approaches that successfully implement the visions of UBC and Wake Forest may require substantial rethinking to achieve the goals and objectives for flexible learning embraced in Deakin’s vision for teaching and learning. A significantly different ‘layer one’ suggests a need for differing goals and objectives for applications at layer two and differing implementation requirements at layer three. In the next section we will look at layer two, the applications layer, to determine the extent to which this proposition holds true. Implementing visions, goals and objectives for the use of information systems for teaching and learning at Wake Forest The central aspect of the Wake Forest vision for the use of information systems for teaching and learning is that student and staff access to the university’s network is to be universal. A second key aspect is that access to this network for teaching and learning purposes is to be through the use of a standard notebook computer supplied to all students and staff. Furthermore, each computer is equipped with a standard software load, and is replaced on a two-year cycle, with graduating students keeping their computers as they leave. The standard software load is refreshed annually. A standard course template or shell was developed for the use of academic staff. The provision of computers to students is being implemented over a four-year period, with each successive first-year cohort receiving notebook computers.

96 John Bottomley Implementing such a vision required the university to invest heavily in its network infrastructure. Redundant fibre optic paths were laid to all buildings and an ATM switched Backbone (622MBPS) installed. Users are provided with 100MBPS switched ethernet connections to the ATM backbone. Risc 6000 computers act as major servers with NT servers installed locally as needed. An early decision was to ‘wire everything’ with the effect that all student rooms in residence halls (remember that 92 per cent of students live on campus), all faculty offices and workplaces, virtually all seats in lecture theatres, many library carrels and the student centre provide network access. At least one major multimedia classroom has been installed in each teaching building. Implementing this vision required much more than simply providing equipment and installing a network. In terms of developing an organisational infrastructure, a key strategy was to fully staff hardware and software support. This required the university initially to train support staff, to offer them continuing education on preferential terms in order to retain them and to accept that many will leave after a few years to take up jobs at higher salaries in the private sector. The acquisition and retention of an appropriately qualified support manager to train and work with support staff was deemed essential (Anderson 1998). Other key organisational infrastructure development decisions were to make use of a certified computer project manager throughout the implementation process, to develop a phased information technology plan and, importantly, to develop an associated financial plan to ‘fund for success’, rather than to control for maximum dollar savings. The driving force behind these organisational infrastructure decisions was to facilitate and make simple the use of network-based teaching and learning at the university. The university recognised that some staff would be sceptical of the value of information technology in the teaching and learning process whilst others would question the appropriateness of standardisation. It addressed the first concern by emphasising that project objectives were primarily concerned with teaching and learning and not the use of technology per se. This it achieved in part by addressing the academic computing needs of the university before addressing the university’s administrative computing needs. It also, as noted above, provided staff with a standard course template and encouraged them to take advantage of the network to gain the benefits for their teaching of what Wake Forest Vice-President David Brown refers to as the ‘low hanging fruit’, i.e. making simple use of electronic mail as a one-to-many and one-to-one communications medium, guiding

Institutional strategies 97 students to useful URLs and using the course template to post course outlines, timetables and assignments, and providing feedback on student queries on course bulletin boards. Most staff require little in the way of training to use the technologies in these ways (Brown 1998). The university directly addressed the second concern by implementing the project on a basis of positive reinforcement. Reasonable requests from staff for additional computer capabilities, special purpose computers for non-teaching use, etc. have also been accommodated. Additional costs have been a fraction of 1 per cent and have ‘yielded huge morale benefits’ (Anderson 1998: 3). Staff are also free to make use of any computer for their own purposes, provided they use the standard issue machine for teaching. Likewise, both staff and students are free to make use of any software in addition to the standard load, with the proviso they provide their own support. The intent behind this approach is simple – facilitate and make as simple as possible the changes in teaching behaviours that are desired. Vision, infrastructure development and change at the University of British Columbia The vision for information systems at UBC also envisages a ‘wired campus’. The Campus Connectivity Project will result in the installation or upgrading of high-speed network connectivity throughout the university. ‘It will create 25,000 connections in offices, classrooms, laboratories, libraries and residences over the next five years. Every building … will have high speed connectivity’ (McLeod 1998). Unlike Wake Forest, however, where the great majority of students live on campus, the majority of UBC students live at home or in other accommodation off-campus. Much of their studying will be done away from the campus – a situation that has implications for network, course and unit design. The difficulties of dealing with offcampus network access will be noted in greater detail in the account of Deakin University that follows. Another difference is that no decision has been taken to standardise on either a single computer for network access or on a common load of software, despite the wide use of the UBC-developed course shell, WebCT. Diversity characterises the situation at UBC, in contrast to the standardisation at Wake Forest. Change is being encouraged but not mandated. Much depends on the initiative and interest of individual staff or departments.

98 John Bottomley Implementing visions, goals and objectives for the use of information systems for teaching and learning at Deakin University As was noted earlier, a key strategic objective for Deakin University is for the flexible delivery of lifelong professional learning in a range of vocational fields, and it has adopted the following definition of flexible learning: Flexible learning refers to an approach to education that places the needs of learners and groups of learners at the centre and takes account, in the design of learning and teaching programmes, of the particular circumstances of learners and teachers, the requirements of the subject of study and the available options for learning methods and milieux. Flexibility may apply to access to courses; accommodating diverse student groups in a course; the place, time and pace of study; the form and pattern of interactions among learners and teachers; and the type and variety of resources to support study and communication. Underpinning principles include primary emphasis on student learning; catering for diverse backgrounds and learning styles of students; accommodating diverse learning environments; recurrent education as a lifelong process; and the appropriate use of information and communication technologies to facilitate learning. (Calvert 1998) The adoption of such a philosophy of education by the university requires the development of teaching and administrative arrangements, and the necessary information and communications technology supports, that allow for its successful implementation. In short, the university needs to possess an information technologysupported flexible learning framework that: • • •

•

supports a range of teaching models suited to the needs of a diverse student body and curriculum; allows for continuous change and improvement; is consistent with emerging international standards for the educational use of the Internet, thus allowing for the easy acquisition, purchase and use of existing learning resources; and provides a series of online administrative tools and systems to support teaching and learning.

Institutional strategies 99 A flexible learning framework with the characteristics noted above is facilitative rather than prescriptive. It specifies the functions and capabilities that need to be supported but anticipates the manner in which these are implemented will change over time as new applications become available on the market. This should in no way be taken as an endorsement of a laissez faire or que sera sera approach to the use of educational and information technology. Rather, the intent is to develop an accessible, rich and easy-to-use teaching and learning environment that supports a range of teaching practices making relatively peripheral use of technologies through to the offering of virtual programmes and courses (Bottomley 1998: 3). The development of a robust and easily accessible network to support such a vision is a complex task at Deakin, which faces the difficulty of providing network services to six campuses and for a significant number of remote users. The development of high-speed redundant inter-campus links is as great a challenge at Deakin as is the development of high-speed intra-campus networks. Likewise, the provision of remote access has proved problematic. The university’s initial approach was the development of a university-operated modem bank. This option has proved unsustainable, however, in an environment of rapid technological change, and the university now requires undergraduate students to make use of internet service providers (ISPs). Such a vision requires a university information systems framework to support flexible teaching and learning that is integrated with existing student record, student support, administrative and library systems, and that provides inter alia: •

•

•

•

for the secure and integrated development of digital and other learning resources, and for the secure and integrated storage of said learning resources; for the flexible transformation of said learning resources into unique unit offerings, and a common ‘look and feel’ interface through which students will access electronic learning resources; database systems to support CML and other teaching applications, and for collaboration and synchronous and nonsynchronous communication between all users; and for the flexible management of student assessment and associated tasks (including moderation across campuses). (Deakin University 1997)

100 John Bottomley

Impacts on academic work and staff development issues There is a large and growing body of literature concerning the changing nature of academic work in systems of mass higher education. Some of this addresses the impacts of information technology on the work of academic and other staff. In a recent report based on the Australian experience, Pickersgill et al. (1998) suggest that one impact is a growing overlap in function between academic and general staff. They identify several areas in which such overlaps of function are developing, including the activities of professionally qualified general staff working jointly with academic staff in the delivery of teaching programmes (for example, language preparation, curriculum design, distance and electronic delivery), in specialist research institutes, and in the support of laboratory and demonstration work. These changes clearly result in part from an increased use of information technologies to support teaching and learning. Their findings indicate that the emergence of co-professionals or paraacademics of the sort advocated by Tinkler et al. (1996) and Fowell and Levy (1995) is occurring in Australian higher education – a conclusion supported by McCann et al. (1998). The Hoare Report on Higher Education Management (1996) advocates the implementation of concomitant changes in the academic role. An investigation into the relationships between diversification in modes of delivery, the use of information and communications technology, academics’ teaching practices and the context within which these practices are employed, was recently conducted at the Queensland University of Technology and Griffith University. The authors of this study report the following relevant findings (Taylor et al. 1996). Relationships between diversification in modes of delivery, the use of information and communications technology, academics’ teaching practices and the context within which these practices are employed are complex, and academics often need to learn how to use technologies in pedagogically appropriate ways for optimum student learning. Taylor et al. (1996) also suggest that: ‘The attitudes and beliefs of individual academics can represent formidable barriers to involvement in flexible approaches’ (1996: xiii) – a finding confirmed by Hesketh et al. (1996) who identify ‘a lack of technical skills and technical support and costs, time and workload arising from new technology’ as the most important barriers to adopting new teaching approaches (p. xi). Interestingly, they note that the ‘threat to job security’ is not seen as strong barrier. Both sets of authors identify the

Institutional strategies 101 need for systematic professional development support and opportunities to collaborate on policy and teaching reforms. Taylor et al. are also particularly concerned about policies that can become barriers to change, rather than agents of change: given the rapid developments in technologies and students’ needs and preferences … [academic staff] should be encouraged to experiment with various practices and technologies, but as members of a professional learning community. In turn, that community should encourage the exploration of assumptions, constantly critique the status quo and value diverse perspectives. It should have as its focus the improvement of teaching and learning, with technology seen as a potentially invaluable tool in that quest. It is clear that such communities are most easily achieved in local settings – teaching teams and, in some instances, organisational elements. (Taylor et al. 1996: xiii) Yetton and Associates identify three institutional arrangements for the provision of staff development commonly in place in Australian universities. These they dub the integrated approach, the parallel approach and the distributed approach. In the integrated approach: support for the development of educational skills is linked to educational and information technology, and to institutional goals and directions. The links are reinforced by structural arrangements which combine in one unit: central support for the development of teaching and learning; support for the development of skills in the use of information technology in teaching; and multimedia and on-line teaching production facilities. (1997: 57) The parallel approach is one in which a unit for the information technology support of teaching operates with existing arrangements for staff development. The distributed approach ‘involves a range of units offering support on the basis of their expertise and location in the university’ (1997: 62). This is a model that places considerable responsibility for project management into the hands of local units and in which local project teams seek support from both local and central providers. The authors suggest that three issues are raised by

102 John Bottomley a distributed approach. These they identify as: the coordination and management of project activities and elements, including pedagogical decisions; the potential for innovation to falter; and the potential for waste and duplication of efforts and resources, including equipment. As indicated earlier, a distributed approach consistent with the position advocated by Taylor et al. (1996) has been adopted at Deakin. Projects have been firmly grounded in the activities of faculties, the authors’ ‘professional learning community’, with support being provided both locally and centrally. Central coordination located in the Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor reflects the university’s recognition of the issues identified by Yetton and Associates. A Professional Development Coordinating Committee representative of the units responsible for aspects of academic and general staff development ensures the development of a coherent and comprehensive university-wide staff development programme for all staff to support and maintain changed practices. That part of the programme delivered through the Deakin Centre for Academic Development is based on the principle that professional development is best conducted with staff facing a real requirement for changed teaching or learning resource development practices. As such, much professional development activity is embedded in the activities of cross-functional course and programme development teams of academic and academic support staff, charged with the planning, design and development of programmes and their associated learning resources. Within these development teams, the focus is on the improvement of teaching and learning, with technology seen as a potentially invaluable tool in that quest. Course and programme evaluations provide staff with an opportunity to reflect on changed practice and to identify possibilities for improved practice. Professional development in this approach is an integral component of educational development, evaluation and change.

Implications for budgeting and finance A recent Commonwealth Government publication in Australia concludes that the introduction of educational technologies requires universities to make a significant investment in the establishment and maintenance of information technologies to support teaching, research and administration, stating that: the use of information technology can mean significant savings in resources with a shift from physical to virtual resources (lecture

Institutional strategies 103 halls and libraries to on-line services) and with a shift in the relative allocation of resources for course development and teaching. (McCann et al. 1998: 28) Notwithstanding the often expressed common wisdom with regard to the cost advantages of distance over ‘conventional’ education, my response to the three propositions above is ‘yes, maybe’ but only under exceptional circumstances, and ‘yes’ again. Whether decreased investment in physical facilities will more than offset the need for higher levels of investment in information technology will depend on the circumstances faced by a particular institution. Even within a given university system, in which institutions face broadly similar salary, building and equipment cost, generalisations will be fraught with difficulties. For example, land values vary enormously between inner Melbourne and Sydney and suburban or rural centres. Investments in information technology that yield cost savings in one location, savings accrued through offsetting a need to expand a campus for example, may not yield savings in another. Investments in technology in a high-wage economy may yield savings not to be obtained in a low-wage régime. As geographers have argued for years, space and place matter – they have consequences (see Massey 1994: 4–11). Likewise, such particularities as wage rates, the numbers of students enrolling and the teaching models adopted determine the relative costs of delivering a given programme. Cost savings over more conventional models of face-to-face instruction only occur if savings in the cost of mediated delivery more than offset the high upfront development costs associated with this form of teaching. What this number of students is depends critically on such factors as the relative wage rates of staff involved in development and delivery, and in the teaching model adopted. There is no single teaching model validly associated with flexible learning. At Deakin at least ten distinct teaching models are in use at the university, of which eight make significant use of educational technology and learning resources. Each of these teaching models has a distinct cost structure with differing relationships between the fixed, development and maintenance, total student support and total materials reproduction costs associated with serving the total number of students enrolled over the lifetime of the course (see Bates 1995: 37–43 for a general discussion of the complexities of costing resource-based approaches to flexible learning). The point at which savings will occur in comparison to ‘conventional instruction’, if this occurs at all, is

104 John Bottomley different for each model. All this within one institution! (Bottomley 1997). That flexible delivery is a cost-effective approach to the provision of instruction is a defensible proposition. The proposition that flexible learning holds out the promise for cost savings vis-à-vis conventional instruction is in some circumstances supportable. The general proposition that the use of information technologies results in cost savings in higher education is, however, invalid notwithstanding the arguments of Global Alliance and others (1997). The economies of scale they identified to bolster their conclusions result from the particulars of teaching models and curricula of national open universities – teaching models and curricula resulting in very large numbers of students in generalist programmes delivered with little, and in some cases no, student support, teaching or academic interaction with other students. Such teaching models and curricula have little, if any, relevance for the educational needs of Australian school-leavers and adults seeking vocationally relevant qualifications.

Conclusions Generalisations concerning the development of flexible learning approaches and their institutional impacts in higher education are difficult. As has been illustrated in the preceding discussions, flexible learning can mean different things and be adopted for different reasons in different institutions. One conclusion, however, is selfevident: namely that the significant institutional adoption of information-technology-supported approaches to teaching and learning needs to be approached strategically. I have argued a case as to why institutions need to develop a clear strategic vision and objectives for teaching and learning and the use of information technology therein. Clarity is required if an institution is to develop a coherent strategy for the management of information within the institution. Such a strategy in turn requires coherent institutional objectives for the development and support of information technology and for human resource and financial management. As was illustrated earlier in the chapter, there are clear choices an institution can make, but make them it must if it is to take maximum advantage of the benefits to be gained from harnessing the power of information technology and to achieve its strategic objectives for teaching and learning.

Institutional strategies 105

References Anderson, J.P. (1998) ‘The Wake Forest story: administrative aspects’, presentation at the Seminar Global Education in the 21st Century, Melbourne: IBM. Bates, A.W. (1995) Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education, London and New York: Routledge. Bottomley, J. (1997) Program Costing: Categories of Costs Associated with Units, Courses and Programs, Geelong: Deakin University. —— (1998) A Vision for and Approach to the Development of a Flexible Learning Framework for Deakin University, Geelong: Deakin University. Brown, D.G. (1998) ‘The Wake Forest story: teaching aspects’, presentation at the Seminar Global Education in the 21st Century, Melbourne: IBM. Calvert, J. (1998) ‘Definition’, unpublished paper, Deakin University, Geelong. Castells, M. (1991) The Informational City, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Deakin University (1997) Priorities and Criteria for the Development of an Information Systems Framework to Support Teaching and Learning at Deakin University, Geelong: Deakin University. —— (1998a) 1998 Pocket Statistics, Geelong: Deakin University. —— (1998b) Life-Long Professional Learning, The University Plan 1998–2000, Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Geelong: Deakin University. Fowell, S. and Levy, P. (1995) ‘Developing a new professional practice: a model for networked learner support in higher education’, Journal of Documentation, 51, 3: 271–280. Frackmann, E. (1996a) ‘General introduction’, in Managing Information Strategies in Higher Education, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. —— (1996b) ‘From computing strategy to information strategy’, in Managing Information Strategies in Higher Education, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Global Alliance Ltd (1997) ‘Australian higher education in the era of mass customisation’, published as Appendix 11 of Learning for Life: A Policy Discussion Paper, Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Canberra: Government Publishing Service. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Post-Modernity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hesketh, B., Gosper, M., Andrews, J. and Sabaz, M. (1996) Computer Mediated Communication in University Teaching, Canberra: Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Hoare, D. (1996) Review of Management of Higher Education Institutions, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Keating, P. (1994) Working Nation (Vol. 2), Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

106 John Bottomley Kemp, D. (1998) Strategic Developments in Higher Education: An Address to the OECD Thematic Review Seminar on the First Years of Tertiary Education, April, Sydney, online at: http//www.deetya.gov.au/ministers/ kemp/ks210498.htm Marginson, S. (1997) ‘Steering from a distance: power relations in Australian higher education’, Higher Education, 31, 1: 63–80. Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender, Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell. McCann, D., Christmass, J., Nicholson, P. and Stuparich, J. (1998) Educational Technology in Higher Education, Canberra: Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. McLeod, D. (1998) ‘UBC 2008’, UBC Alumni Chronicle, 52, 2: 18–19. Pickersgill, R., van Barneveld, K. and Bearfield, S. (1998) ‘General and academic work: are they different? A discussion paper on current practices and options for changing work organisation and enterprise bargaining’, Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Program, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Probert, B. (1994) ‘Globalisation, economic restructuring and the state’, in S. Bell and B. Head (eds) State, Economy and Public Policy in Australia, Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Scott, P. (1991a) ‘All change or no change at all?’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 9 August. —— (1991b) ‘Knowledge’s outer shape, inner life’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 16 August. —— (1991c) ‘Confusion as evidence of health’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 23 August. —— (1991d) ‘Revolution and continuity reconciled’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 30 August. Taylor, P.G., Lopez, L. and Quadrelli, C. (1996) Flexibility, Technology and Academics’ Practices: Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps, Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Program, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Tinkler, D., Lepani, B. and Mitchell, J. (1996) Education and Technology Convergence, (Commissioned Report 43), Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Yetton, P. and Associates (1997) Managing the Introduction of Technology in the Delivery and Administration of Higher Education, Sydney, Fujitsu Centre, Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales, Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.

7

Managing institutional change and the pressures for new approaches to teaching and learning Bruce King

In Chapter Six, John Bottomley argues that education institutions in developed countries face a set of common challenges stemming from two decades of economic, political and socio-cultural change. Indeed, the significance of these challenges is not limited to educational institutions; they are also creating a move towards flexible learning practices in the labour market and workplace. Edwards and Tait discuss the shaping of flexible learning policy in Chapter Eight. This chapter, however, will consider the impact of such change specifically on the patterns of teaching and learning, and change management within higher education. The general socio-political changes have created two main pressures for internal change within higher education institutions (HEIs). First, the context within which HEIs now have to operate influences the ways in which they approach change (and the rate at which these changes can occur). Second, there is more specific pressure for creating a new, more flexible teaching and learning climate, and for those administering HEIs to manage this change. These pressures have an impact on the organisational culture of HEIs, in that they dictate the way institutions deal with change and they require a fundamental shift in one particular part part of their core activity – the delivery of teaching and learning programmes. The issue for management is how to address the complexity of the required changes in circumstances. For instance, in areas where there is likely to be both internal resistance to changes in the core values embedded in current practices, and where conditions allow little scope for solutions, there is a requirement for significant additional expenditure.

108 Bruce King

Change and management in higher education institutions There is some measure of agreement on the kinds of powerful forces affecting HEIs. Bradley (1997b: 1) identifies: • •

• •

globalisation of economic systems; rapid development of communications technologies which are revolutionising both the way we do things and our contact with people across the globe; changing patterns of work and employment; and growing economic and social inequalities within and between nations.

Reid (1997: 1) mirrors some of these and adds: • • • • •

the political economy of higher education; the reconfiguration of knowledge within and between traditional fields of scholarship; the increasingly interventionist tendencies of government, the professions and employers; the funding and deregulation of higher education; competition for the potential client base for universities.

Both Bradley and Reid are vice chancellors of new Australian universities, moderately large institutions by the standards of that country, and each with a distinctive social agenda reflecting the needs of their local communities. As such, they are particularly aware of the difficulties confronting the institutions they are attempting to bring to maturity. Both institutions lack the strong research tradition evident in universities of longer standing and, consequently, the Vice Chancellors are very conscious of matters that affect the quality of the teaching and learning environments of their institutions. But they are not alone. Reid (1997: 1) points to the remarkable similarity of ‘multiple reforms and policy shifts of the last decade’ across HEIs in OECD countries. Salter and Tapper (cited in Dopson and McNay 1996) argue that these pressures are the attempts of governments to gain some degree of control over a university system that was educationally ‘elitist’ relating to ‘pedagogical’ merit and access policies. It was also costly and without much ‘diversity’.

Managing institutional change 109 This is reflected in the English perspective of Ford et al. (1996: 8) who point to such pressures on all institutions arising from: • • • •

the ‘massification’ of education; competition and control; changing student profiles; the demand for provision of learning resources.

These elements have all been present in the policies of reformist governments in Australia, but the election of a conservative coalition government in 1996 led to a changed political perspective. In a recent lecture, Simon Marginson (1998) addressed what he describes as the ‘deepening crisis’ of Australian universities, comprising ‘three mutually reinforcing but individually distinct’ elements: •

• •

the resource crisis caused by the decline in government funding, linked to a declining commitment to the nation-building role of the universities; the identity crisis caused by the corporatisation of internal university systems and cultures; and the crisis of global strategy: how do Australian universities make their way in a globalising university environment? Marginson (1998: 3–4)

He argues that the influence of market forces on higher education has been greater in Australia than in comparable countries, as a result of the current government consciously: undermining and undoing the national-building projects and institutions of the previous period of government. There is strong pressure … to weaken or dismantle those elements specific to Australia and different to the American model – for example semi-universal health care, low cost university education, industrial arbitration and national telecommunications. Noncommercial national broadcasting is also questioned. There is a consensus among economic reformers that these nationally specific elements are a stumbling block which must be removed. Institutions and policies from which Australia derived its modern national character, and which nurtured culturally distinctive elements, have lost official support. (Marginson 1998: 4–5)

110 Bruce King There are two important points to be made here. While many of the pressures on HEIs common in OECD countries can be attributed in part to the enthusiasm with which national governments have adopted market-driven approaches to the provision of services, there is a difference in Australia. Marginson (1998: 5) contends that even where other countries ‘are active players in globalisation and share … market liberal policy settings’ they are not ‘winding down and folding up their nation-building institutions’ and cites France, Germany and Japan as examples. Second, while the Australian scene may be gloomier, it is the acceptance of market pressures internationally, and the rate at which they are being adopted, none the less, that are both pressing the teaching programmes of institutions generally and making it hard for them to develop coherent responses. Consider the widespread concern with funding cuts to higher education, for example. Marginson (1998: 5) holds that the proportion of government contribution to university funding in Australia has dropped from 90 per cent to 60 per cent in the last decade. The implications of this have been dramatic. Large universities are abandoning courses long considered part of the stable provision of higher education. In one week, during the drafting of this chapter, there were calls from within institutions for the resignation of the vice chancellors of both Monash and Macquarie Universities over the issue of proposed cuts to staff and programmes. Ford et al. (1996: 9) comment on HEIs in the United Kingdom: ‘Public sector funding per student has fallen by twenty-seven percent in the past five years and is likely to fall another ten percent, in real terms, over the next three years.’ They say that ‘it is increasingly difficult to maintain conventional patterns of working and traditional models of teaching and learning’. The situation has become sufficiently serious that Sir John Daniel (1998: 2) has proposed cost reduction as one of the five aims to be pursued in the development of higher education programmes, the others being access, quality, flexibility and innovation. In an attempt to compensate for declining government revenue, institutions have been encouraged to adopt user-pays approaches, which bring additional pressures such as greater public surveillance and accountability for the provision of quality services. Politicians have been keen to exploit this new level of public accountability to ensure that universities are more efficient and attuned to the market place, and also to support government definitions of education and training. Such definitions at present are somewhat impoverished as they rest upon the interrelated rhetoric of industrial needs for a trained workforce, the ‘user-pays’ principle and instrumental views of education.

Managing institutional change 111 Funding cuts are accompanied by other pressures that compound their impact, for example, the movement from elite to mass systems of higher education. Increased participation in higher education was a success of the Labor Governments in Australia between 1985–1995, with an increase in participation of seventeen to nineteen-year-olds rising from ninety to 172 per thousand (Gallagher 1997: 3). In Britain over 30 per cent of eighteen-year-olds entered higher education in 1996, and the projected increase is 40 per cent by the end of the century (Ford et al. 1996: 9). This puts pressure on HEIs both to do more with less government support and to increase their quality. As Yetton and Associates (1997: 2) observe, institutions differ in quality and ‘they [students] can’t all go to the “old” universities’. This commits institutions not just to increasing efficiency but also continuous improvement. Ford and his colleagues (1996: 12) argue that HEIs ‘will increasingly have to adopt a typical servicebased marketing approach’ by asking such questions as: • • • • • • • • • •

What are the investment factors that will determine how likely the institution is to acquire its funding? How will the balance be split between teaching and research? How important is teaching to a learning environment, how important is research? Is specialisation likely to lead to a satisfactory conclusion or will wider choice attract more students? Where are students likely to come from? What are students looking for? Are some students more financially attractive than others? Can we build a ‘learning product’ that will be attractive to them? Can we define and afford a learning infrastructure that will attract our target students? How do we publicise ourselves to our market? (Ford et al. 1996: 11)

I have no doubt that some of these questions would be anathemas to many academics; equally I am conscious that they are the part of the day-to-day considerations of management in my own institution. What is at issue is the nature of the institution’s organisational culture. Dopson and McNay (1996) consider this to be: a combination of rituals, routines, myths and symbols that give very clear messages about what is seen as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. However, an organization’s culture is also

112 Bruce King influenced by the way in which power is distributed in the organization, and how work is structured and controlled. Culture is therefore a combination of values, structure and power that has implications for every aspect of an organization’s operations and external relationships. (Dopson and McNay 1996: 20–21) They continue: We also know from research in this area that there are other important influences on cultures, including the history, traditions and ‘ownership’ of the organization, its size, goals and objectives, the technology it operates with, the nature of the workforce and the environment in which it is situated. (Dopson and McNay 1996: 20) The questions from Ford and his colleagues are resisted by many academics because they are seen to bring such matters as the organisation’s history, traditions and ownership into contest. Dopson and McNay (1996) cite Warren who suggested that when polytechnics became universities, they began to abandon the main features of collegiality which were the corner-stones of their substantiality and vivacity. This led the new universities to display the signs of staff antipathy, contention and disharmony, together with bureaucraticanomic life. This is somewhat tendentious, but the point is important. For many academics, the demise of collegiality, i.e. the embodiment of institutional ‘ownership’, and the concomitant rise of managerialism in higher education strikes at the very nature of the ‘enterprise’. Yet all universities are now more or less ‘managed’ institutions. In Australia, this is the product of quite explicit government policy (DEET 1993) which saw intervention as appropriate to help bring about: • • • •

strong managerial culture; consultation and accountability to government and other stakeholders; streamlined decision-taking; institutional flexibility and efficiency of operations.

Four points need to be made about this. First, it is not simply the ‘new’ universities where problems exist. Government demands

Managing institutional change 113 for efficiency, relevance and accountability are directed to higher education systems as much as individual institutions. Second, the recourse to private sector managerialism has occurred because HEIs have not themselves paid serious attention to the distinctive kinds of organisational management they might require at a time when the context within which they operate has forced significant change upon them (Tapper and Salter, cited in Dopson and McNay 1996). Third, while there is academic resistance to new forms of HEI management, this is by no means consistent within institutions. Generally, university administrations are criticised by their own staff on two fronts. There are those who despise the kinds of changes being forced upon higher education and who regard ‘management’ as having capitulated to pressure that it should have resisted. Others, who have embraced entrepreneurialism in higher education, regard management as slowing them down by insisting on levels of internal accountability that frustrate their capacity to operate within the wider economy. Fourth, the conservative Coalition Government elected in 1996 has removed some of the intervention of its predecessors but placed even greater reliance on market forces, competition and increasing privatisation of higher education institutions as mechanisms for improving overall quality in the sector (Meek and Wood 1998: 4–6). Like it or not, the relative insulation of universities from the wider community and the economy has disappeared. The need to deal in commercial terms with industry and the business end of the professions has posed substantial challenges to the culture of HEIs and in particular their decision-making structures, which are regarded by other elements of the community as incredibly slow and inefficient. The scale of change required involves a necessary shift in approach to management, administrative procedures, staffing arrangements and patterns of internal funding. The challenge for those who lead HEIs is how to bring such a complex range of changes about in circumstances where there is likely to be internal resistance to new practices and where there is little (or diminished) possibility for extra funding. As a result, Ford et al. (1996: 33) argue that HEIs ought to consider: • • •

redefinition of their business scope; identification of core activities; assessment of the physical, human and intellectual resources available to them;

114 Bruce King • •

assessment of the market at local, national and international levels; identification of strategies for exploitation that maximise quality and minimise costs.

These are critical dimensions of a comprehensive strategy for bringing change about in a large institution, but they are not sufficient to ensure success in higher education. I would also add a number of other elements, including: • • • • •

• •

new organisational structures; consultative relationships with the stakeholders in the core enterprise; a planning and quality improvement cycle, including benchmarking; systematic development of a supportive administrative and technical infrastructure; introduction of an enterprise culture that incorporates both project management and business planning for new developments a system of rewards for staff; appropriate processes for professional development.

I would now like to comment briefly on each of these additional elements. New organisational structures The organisational structures of higher education institutions tend to reflect some or all of the following: • • •

enterprise dimensions, e.g. management, administration and specialist support activities; areas of academic specialisation by field of study or cognate groupings of such fields; decision-making and approvals mechanisms, usually stressing collegial or representative group processes, with some acknowledgment of senior discipline expertise, e.g. the professoriate.

In very large part, the organisational structures are one embodiment of the culture of the institution. While it is not necessary for it to be so, they have frequently become barriers to change, constrained any

Managing institutional change 115 customer orientation in the provision of services, reinforced exclusionary practices relating to diversification of the clientele or core business, and supported particular views of excellence based on selectivity, individualism, the quality of inputs rather than outcomes and increasing specialisation. No distinctive organisational model for higher education has developed from within the sector and it may be that the best that can be achieved is ‘competent leadership and managerial efficiency’ drawing on private sector experience (Tapper and Salter cited in Dopson and McNay 1996). What is critical is that institutions develop an organisational structure that can accommodate prompt decision-taking within a framework that supports quality operations in areas of core business. Without wishing to recommend one particular approach over another, it is worth noting that several Australian universities are currently experimenting with larger rather than smaller aggregations of fields of study, in part to create a critical mass sufficient to afford the resource capacity to innovate and develop expertise in areas such as support for quality teaching and learning, application of new technologies to core business and revenue generation. Consultative relationships with stakeholders The need for consultation with stakeholders is in part simple recognition of the changing expectations of students, employers and the community at large about what universities do and who should judge the quality of how they discharge their function. Gallagher (1997: 8) cites one of Australia’s most senior higher education civil servants as stating, ‘the public will want to know more about provider capacity, performance, customer service and quality. … Higher education providers will need to know their costs, their competitive advantages and their comparative performance.’ This view has been reinforced by notions of user-pays in the provision of HEI services, increasing reliance on externally imposed performance indicators and published ratings of institutional performance, government-initiated audits of quality and the pressure of competition. There is increasing concern about self-assertion of quality in higher education, one manifestation of which is the expectation of certain generic attributes in university graduates in addition to their subject expertise. This is reflected in the activity-based curriculum of such British institutions as Oxford Brookes University, Alverno College in the United States and the focus on developing graduate

116 Bruce King qualities in the Australian Technology Network Universities (see, for example, Otter 1998). Planning and quality improvement cycle Planning and quality improvement cycles gained significant impetus in Australia from the establishment of a government-initiated quality audit process that rewarded and ranked institutions both on their achievements and the processes they implemented to ensure quality outcomes. None the less, there can be a tendency for internal planning processes to be paper exercises, producing worthy documentation that bears varying degrees of relationship to what actually occurs within the component parts of the institution and destined for most of its life to gather dust. Competition and resource constraints will force HEIs to move to more sophisticated and helpful planning activity. To put it bluntly, if a discipline team cannot answer the question: ‘Do staff know what courses will be introduced in three years time, why they will be, and what level of support they have from the relevant professional groupings?’, then that part of the institution is just muddling along. Not only courses, but also the environment of an HEI has to be planned. At the University of South Australia, there has been a ten-year programme of systematic movement towards a new teaching and learning environment. This has been prepared for in policy commitments, resource allocation to technical infrastructure, and progress articulated in periodic reviews. Nunan, in Chapter Four of this book, discusses various models which identify planning ‘mile posts’ for the coming year, including a multi-coloured wall-chart displayed in corridors and teaching rooms throughout one university. Supportive administrative and technical infrastructure The administrative and support infrastructure of an HEI is an increasingly complex undertaking. The increase in the proportion of seventeen to nineteen-year-olds moving to higher education (see above) has been accompanied by a greater diversification in the student body and consequently a greater range of student learning needs and expectations of support. Dopson and McNay (1996: 18) invoke the cybernetic law: ‘a system must be as internally complex as is appropriate to reflect the degree of external complexity it has to face’. To which one would add, it must also be congruent (in the sense of the administrative system being sympathetic to the assump-

Managing institutional change 117 tions of the core business), appear as a seamless web of service to the clients and be sufficiently flexible to cater for patterns of demand that fall outside conventional practice. The limitations of existing computer-based support and administrative systems are sometimes only recognised in their failure to accommodate an existing external demand. The presence of an outside agent can be a valuable stimulus. Open Learning Australia, which brokers subjects from several postcompulsory educational institutions on a fee-for-service basis, offers them to students in four teaching periods per year. The provider institutions typically found that their student information systems were incapable of dealing with such flexibility! An enterprise culture There are those in HEIs who do understand and operate with some success in contexts which derive their imperatives from the marketplace. Researchers who have an applied emphasis in their work and academics with personal experience in commerce and industry, often recruited precisely for that expertise, understand the pressures and timeframes of business partners. Many, however, do not and often for quite good reasons. Factors mentioned previously, e.g. competition, customer service, revenue generation, accountability and responsiveness to stakeholders have only taken on significant new force in recent years. Many academics have no training, indeed would have eschewed it, in business practice. Their professional context and the times supported them as discipline experts and, at best, talented amateurs in activities other than teaching and research. Projects undertaken with those outside HEIs were often characterised by: • • • • • •

unrealistic time frames; ponderous and sometimes ineffective decision-taking processes; limited understanding of the actual costs associated with their activity; a failure to mount an adequate business case as part of the rationale for activity; quality asserted on the basis of inputs rather than demonstrated in outcomes; little sense of process management to bring collaborative activity to resolution.

In the current climate, these are the conditions of failure. HEIs have typically sought to import such expertise as is necessary to cover

118 Bruce King these shortfalls, often in the form of business manager appointments or by establishing business development units to provide support for academics seeking to mount bids for funded project activity. This is only a partial solution. Until those who manage HEIs and a significant number of key academic staff within them develop some understanding and skill in such matters, then progress towards entrepreneurial and enterprise-based activity will be sluggish. This has direct consequences for the development of teaching programmes, too. Institutions can no longer sustain programmes offered on the basis of academic, rather than client, interest. The constraints on resources mean that responsible academics cannot justify demand for new courses on the basis of intuition; rather they require an adequately mounted business case, with defensible market research to establish levels of demand, likely competitors, and viability over time. This is particularly important in the case of distance education and flexibly delivered courses. Attention has to be given to the actual fixed and variable costs of production and delivery, the capacity to amortise expenditure over years of offer, with some understanding of the cost implications of methodological choices particularly where these involve new technologies. Without appropriate levels of business expertise, academics who conscientiously try to meet the changing mission of their institutions through their own endeavours can quite readily incur significant losses on activity. Rewards for staff If the changing context of higher education requires staff to operate in different ways, there is a legitimate question of whether institutional reward systems recognise their changed behaviour. Nunan (1996) has argued that the culture of HEIs is largely shaped by research and, in the case of teaching, focuses on the transmission of discipline knowledge. The consequence of the latter is ‘a strong cultural devaluing of the concept of creating a learning environment as a part of intellectual work’ (Nunan 1996: 8). The enduring nature of cultural values suggests there will be resistance to different rewards systems. It will be argued later that a reorientation of teaching towards the creation of environments in which learning can occur is a critical part of the response of HEIs to the demands upon them. What is of consequence here is that despite the complexity of such an undertaking: the reward systems and measures of productivity are changed to account for skills and energies directed towards establishing

Managing institutional change 119 teaching and learning environments where student learning interactions and outcomes are judged to be superior to other approaches. (Nunan 1996: 8) A similar argument could be made for other, non-traditional academic activity. Appropriate processes for professional development The new demands on HEIs changes the role of the professional developer. Bradley (1997a: 2) has argued that existing models of professional development in higher education not only fail to serve institutions but constrain action to bring about necessary change. She rejects prevailing collegial, professional service and counselling models (Webb 1996) in favour of a model that recognises (1) wholeof-institution approaches to cultural change in pursuit of an agreed mission, (2) the contribution of all management positions to staff development and (3) a necessary commitment of staff developers to institutional strategic directions. Bradley’s prescription is to bring an analysis of strategic directions and planning about their achievement to the heart of professional development by having staff developers who: • • • • •

•

• •

understand the strategic direction which the institution legitimates; are a part of the process of establishing the strategic direction; appraise the extent/strength of this legitimation; look for stakeholders and collaborators who will be affected by proposed changes; consider the processes which give effect to change – ‘lighthouse examples, balance between top-down/bottom-up [strategies], working with collaborators’; prepare the ground with ‘starting points’ to give effect to change through links with existing change processes and strategies for involving others; make judgments about strategic gains and the extent to which the change can take place, given particular contexts; do all the above in strategic dialogue with managers at all levels of the institution. (Bradley 1997a: 3)

120 Bruce King Meeting the strategic commitments of the institution does not mean strictly educational ends are ignored. For example, at the University of South Australia, there have been attempts to conceive student support strategically, by seeing it in terms of the professional development of academic staff. Rather than accept the deficit model of student support, i.e. lecturers teach – students fail, trials have occurred to bring the expertise of study advisers into the shaping of the teaching and learning transactions in a proactive and collaborative manner. Having study advisers work with academics in addressing the scope and quality of teaching and learning opportunities allows all students taking the course to be exposed to activities directed to meeting concerns expressed by previous cohorts in the same classes (George and O’Regan 1998).

The pressure for new teaching approaches I wish to turn now to the question of how the pressures on HEIs explicitly impact on teaching and learning and what options institutions have by way of response. In Australia, the costs of teaching provision comprise the largest component of recurrent expenditure in higher education, a situation presumably mirrored in other developed countries. Because the forces described above impact on expenditure, and resources are generally required to meet increasing needs, ‘it is increasingly difficult to maintain conventional patterns of working and traditional models of teaching and learning’ (Ford et al. 1996: 9). Universities have to accommodate the simple fact that in relation to teaching provision they can no longer do what they used to do in the same way, but that there are increasing demands that they do different and additional things. Simple facts, of course, can give rise to complex and demanding challenges. Jan Reid comments: At the locus of the curriculum, these and other factors come into play in ways that confront academic and support staff with new and complex challenges. Knowledge is not only exploding, but escaping the disciplinary territories in which it was once contained. Multidisciplinary studies are commonplace. Researchers are increasingly publishing across conventional disciplinary boundaries. The entry of new professional fields and diverse ideological, social and paradigmatic shifts create ongoing challenges to received knowledge. At the same time there are (though not always clear or consistent) demands from employers,

Managing institutional change 121 professional bodies, students and the community for vocational relevance, generic skills, educational breadth and opportunities for lifelong learning. (Reid 1997: 1) She adds: Finally, the long-standing distinction between open learning or distance education and on-campus programs is being blurred by the realisation that flexible modalities are both appropriate for and expected by a range of students, and that resource based learning and creative timetabling are likely to become the norm, rather than special attempts to meet the access needs of certain groups. (Reid 1997: 1) Reid’s view involves an implicit assumption of some recognition of the breaking-down of distinctions between the teaching mode by academic staff and their preparedness to make appropriate educational responses. However, she recognises the potential for curriculum ideals to fall victim to budgetary pressures (Reid 1997: 4). Seven years ago, the Working Party of the Committee of Scottish University Principals (1992: ix) considered that radical reform of teaching and learning was necessary. They saw the greatest challenge as being ‘to persuade a majority of those involved in higher education to see teaching as their prime activity and as one posing intellectual challenges and offering rewards comparable to those of standard research’. This is the other side of the position advocated by Nunan (1996: 8), on the cultural devaluation of teaching within higher education, but it does not deal adequately with the enormous pressure to more flexible teaching and learning modes identified by Reid. There is considerable correspondence between her position and that of Ford et al.: HEIs are likely to move away from a pattern based on conventional teaching methods delivered in a fixed place at a fixed time, to a much more flexible system in which people learn how they want, when they want and where they want. Students will be independent, active learners, not passive recipients of teaching. They will make extensive use of technology in learning, and many of them will learn at a distance, from home or in the workplace, not on a campus at all. They will use an enormously wide range

122 Bruce King of learning resources: computer-based learning packages; printed open learning materials; networked information resources which they will seek out across the Internet; and books and other documents held in the library or resource centre. They will inhabit a much more diverse, richer information environment. (Ford et al. 1996: 15) There is little doubt that such analyses of the near future of teaching and learning environments are correct. As Nunan points out in Chapter Four, Roderick West (1998), Chair of the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy in Australia, has put this succinctly: Flexibility and responsiveness will be the watchwords for success over the next 20 years. … Australians will demand flexibility over what, how, when and where they study, and it will be critical for our national well-being that those demands are met. (West 1998: 69 ) It is my view that flexible delivery of courses is both inevitable and already widely discernible across university systems in most industrialised countries. This is a product of recent higher education history and the responses of various governments and managerial hierarchies to rapid change. There is a sense in which any theoretical objections and consideration of alternatives may have been overtaken by events. To briefly summarise, I understand flexible delivery to mean: the provision of learning resources and the application of technologies to create, store and distribute course content, enrich communication, and provide support and services to enable more effective management of learning by the learner. In particular, the concept involves a view of learning in which a teacher does not predominantly mediate the student’s experience. (King 1998: 13) By ‘inevitable’ I am bowing to the predictable impact of the pressures identified earlier in this chapter, although the particular response of flexible delivery is dependent on other things. These include the successful Australian history of distance delivery from conventional HEIs, the values which derive from theories of open learning and the transforming potential for education of developments in information and communications technologies. Technological developments provide the means for ends legitimated by the other two elements

Managing institutional change 123 above: successful distance education practice and notions of the desirability of ‘openness’ in education. This Australian dimension is by no means generally understood; more typically, the movement to flexible delivery is simply defended as part of an international trend (see, for example, University of Newcastle 1997: 1). In practice, however, it is of some consequence for the ways in which institutions approach the application of new technologies to teaching and learning. Researchers from the Fujitsu Centre (at the University of New South Wales) surveyed twenty Australian HEIs and identified three generic strategies they consider institutions employ to gain strategic advantages over competitors through the application of information technologies to teaching: value adding, mass customisation and standardised delivery (Yetton and Associates 1997: xi–xiii). What the researchers did not emphasise was the weight given to existing distance education infrastructure in making decisions at institutional level, although this was dealt with indirectly through case studies. Anecdotal evidence suggests those institutions that have made significant headway in relation to flexible delivery have done so either on the basis of redirecting distance education expertise and resources or by committing significant resources to the area. The University of Southern Queensland provides a strong example of the former; the University of Melbourne the latter. Fairly commonly, innovative developments in institutions of all kinds have been at the instigation of individual enthusiasts. This gives rise to three problems at institutional level. First, individual innovation shares many of the characteristics of cottage industries, particularly the replication of development work, adoption of strategies which do not lead to mass application and unrealistic labour costings. Second, the capacity of the institution to support developments, both in terms of expertise and resources, is rapidly exceeded as individuals adopt incompatible technical platforms and proprietary software. Third, decisions to expand innovations to wider application are more influenced by the apparent success than systematic assessment of the merits of the technologies adopted. This is very evident in relation to cost considerations. To underline the latter point, the Fujitsu researchers found ‘almost universal agreement that information technology (IT) initiatives had both improved quality and reduced the costs of teaching and administration. But there was very little evidence … to support those claims’ (Yetton and Associates 1997: xi). Several of the authorities cited here (e.g. Bradley 1997b; Reid

124 Bruce King 1997; Ford et al. 1996) suggest that the new learning environments that are the logical response to the pressures on institutions have to result from strategic decision-taking. Ford, for example, suggests that in doing so, institutions should consider: • • • •

new organisational structures; new learning methods; new delivery methods; new partnerships and collaboration. (Ford et al. 1996: 9)

I wish to comment on each of these, using examples from my own institution, the University of South Australia. This is not to suggest any particular relative merit in the approaches we have taken but to indicate the kinds of considerations involved. New organisational structures The university has made four significant decisions about structure that impinge on its future learning environment: the establishment of a Flexible Learning Centre, consolidation of faculties into much larger aggregations (Divisions), creation of a Division of Access and Academic Support and management of the move to a universal online environment (UniSAnet) through a project team. The rationale for the establishment of the Flexible Learning Centre is well documented in Yetton and Associates (1997) but at base involved bringing all those whose role is to add value to the activities of academic staff in support of teaching and learning into a single administrative entity. The Centre combines distance education operations, professional development activity, student counselling and advisory services, technical production facilities for the development of learning resources, online services and an academic group with policy-making and advocacy skills. The critical dimension of the mission of the Flexible Learning Centre is that its priorities entirely derive from the academic groupings of the university, including the policy commitments of the institution as a whole. As a consequence, activities relating to support for professional development, production of learning resources, distance teaching services and support for students are negotiated in a service contract with teaching areas. The consequence of this development is that scarce professional development and support resources can be employed strategically across the institution, with some attempt to achieve economies of effort.

Managing institutional change 125 The creation of four divisions rather than nine faculties has served two particularly relevant functions. First, the capacity of the aggregated groups to generate funds to support innovation is significantly enhanced. Second, the divisional pro vice chancellors sit equally with their colleagues who have central coordinating responsibilities at senior management meetings. The capacity to secure decisions that are informed both by operational considerations and institutional imperatives is significant in a single group reporting directly to the vice chancellor. Equally, senior management accountability for supporting necessary steps to the future learning environment is much more tangible. The creation of a Division of Access and Academic Support that has no teaching functions but brings managers with responsibility for the Flexible Learning Centre, the Registry, the Library and Information Technology Systems into a single grouping both expedites and necessitates collaborative activity between key support staff within the University. The group considers, for example, plans for the development of new computerised student information and management systems with the capacity to inform developments that reflect a breadth of concerns previously missing. In particular, the insistence on an institutional focus in discussions has caused a breaking down of the ‘silo’ mentality that too often characterises operations in large institutions. The introduction of a universal, common and user-friendly online environment within the University is managed through a project team, responsible to the Director of the Flexible Learning Centre and funded through resources channelled through the Information Technology Services Unit. This has allowed an institution-wide perspective, by combining staff with relevant expertise from different sections of the university. The approach impinges in no dramatic way on individual career development by moving too early to formal structures and the establishment of new positions and permits the involvement of necessary personnel on temporary attachment from their substantive positions. Similarly, the initiative has fostered the adoption of project management techniques focused on the imperatives of the central innovation rather than subsuming necessary functions within the activities of existing support centres. New learning methods Bringing relevant support expertise together in a single Flexible Learning Centre has enabled teaching and learning issues to be strategically targeted for action. The use of study advisers, previously

126 Bruce King concerned only to provide remedial support to students individually or in groups, in collaborative reshaping of teaching methods to incorporate necessary forms of study support, has been mentioned above. Similarly, institutional policy commitments to the development within graduates of an agreed set of generic attributes in addition to content mastery have fostered a programme of support activities such that teaching academics can obtain support with course documentation, planning of teaching and learning activities, the assessment of students and the evaluation of programmes that address those attributes. Staff are being encouraged to adopt teaching strategies that afford students opportunities to reflect on their personal development of the agreed set of graduate characteristics. This support is critical. Perhaps the single most important professional development activity is that which enables an academic to reflect on the assumptions they hold about their own professional practice. Because the Graduate Qualities initiative moves discussion of learning beyond the immediate area of academics’ technical expertise, there is a openness to new learning strategies that would be much harder to realise in areas more directly related to disciplinederived content and methodology. New delivery methods The deflection of threats to academic competence through institutional commitment to new learning experiences that sit partially beyond the concerns of the discipline, i.e. the development of the Graduate Qualities, assumes greater significance with the application of new technologies to teaching and learning. These powerful resources confront transmission notions of education, alter the role of the academic as content expert to that of facilitator of learning, extend the range of available resources well beyond the capacity of an individual to prescribe, and offer students opportunities for interaction with each other and their teachers on an unprecedented level. They also make new demands on individual staff expertise with the technology itself. For this reason, the University of South Australia, through UniSAnet, has opted for initial movement online that can be managed without skills beyond those required for basic wordprocessing. Use of wizards, web forms and templates enables all academics a degree of success teaching online before additional skills are required.

Managing institutional change 127 New partnerships and collaboration The university has opted for an essentially low-cost, low-technology approach to its initial online environment. The critical issue is how to incorporate the success of innovative and enthusiastic individuals who have gone their own way ahead of institutional commitments as well as incorporating new ‘flagship’ developments into our online presence, both for promotional and developmental reasons. At base, our strategy has been to concentrate internal resources on the common, universal range of online services and to outsource expertise for those academics seeking specialist support, or who have the capacity through entrepreneurial activity to purchase additional complexity and sophistication in the online components of their programmes. The model adopted is to enter into commercial relationships with local IT companies who share the university’s philosophy. Products, e.g. sophisticated online research tools, are developed using academic intellectual property and external technical expertise. The return to the university is a user-friendly but sophisticated addition to online resources; the external company gains a product eminently marketable to other HEIs.

Conclusion The changes faced by HEIs internationally share several common characteristics, not least of which is the enduring imperative they create to bring about new environments for teaching and learning. This chapter has sought to elaborate on some of the sources of change and reflect on their implications for institutions. The source of most of the difficulty in finding appropriate responses to the challenges faced is the culture of the HEIs involved. The position taken here is that the culture can only be confronted and such difficulties overcome by systematic planning at management level. There is no single set of decisions that best enable this, but sharing examples of what has been tried already is a good beginning.

References Bottomley, J. (1999) ‘Reconfiguring institutional strategies for flexible learning and delivery’, Chapter Six, this volume. Bradley, D. (1997a) ‘Staff developer as strategist’, paper for The AHED Forum, New Millennium, Four Winds, AHED of Change, Glenelg, South Australia, 7 July.

128 Bruce King —— (1997b) ‘Inventing the future: Australian higher education responses’, keynote paper to the Third Indonesian Distance Learning Network Symposium, Distance Education and Open Learning: Future Visions, Bali, Indonesia, 17–20 November. Committee of Scottish University Principals (1992) Teaching and Learning in an Expanding Higher Education System, Report of the Working Party, cited in P. Ford, et al. (1996), pp. 16–17. Daniel, J. (1998) ‘Open learning and/or distance education: which one for what purpose?’, in Commonwealth of Learning (ed.) Open Learning for the New Society: The Role of Higher Education, Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning. DEET (Department of Employment, Education and Training) (1993) National Report on Australia’s Higher Education Sector, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Dopson, S. and McNay, I. (1996) ‘Organizational culture’, in D. Warner and D. Palfreyman (eds) Higher Education Management, The Key Elements, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Ford, P. et al. (1996) Managing Change in Higher Education, A Learning Environment Architecture, London: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Gallagher, M. (1997) ‘Current approaches and challenges in higher education’, conference paper, online at: http://www.deetya.gov.au/divisons/ hed/highered/pubs/mgspch1.htm George, R. and O’Regan, K. (1998) ‘A professional development model of student support’, paper prepared for Transformation in Higher Education, Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Auckland, NZ, 7–10 July. King, B. (1998) ‘Distance education in Australia’, in H. Perraton (ed.) Open Learning for the New Society: The Role of Higher Education, Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning,. Marginson, S. (1998) ‘National-building universities in a global environment, the choices before us’, presented in Public Lecture Series, The Role of Universities in Australia in 2010, Adelaide: University of South Australia, South Australia, 10 September. Meek, V. L. and Wood, F.Q. (1998) Managing Higher Education Diversity in a Climate of Public Sector Reform, Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Program, Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Nunan, T. (1996) ‘Flexible delivery – what is it and why is it part of current educational debate?’, paper presented at Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education, Perth, Western Australia: Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, 8–12 July.

Managing institutional change 129 Otter, S. (1998) ‘Outcomes – a ten year perspective’, paper given at the Improving Student Learning Symposium, Brighton, UK, September and online at: http://cs3.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/abchome Reid, J. (1997) ‘Summary of discussions’, paper prepared for Higher Education Council and the National Academies Forum: Joint Seminar on the Undergraduate Curriculum, University House, Australian National University, Canberra, 6–7 July, online at: http://www.deetya.gov.au /nbeet/hec/publicat/curricsem/reid.htm University of Newcastle (1997) ‘Flexible learning: improving student access and learning, discussion paper, online at: http://www.newcastle.edu.au /flexintro.htm Webb, G. (1996) Understanding Staff Development, Buckingham: Open University Press. West, R. (1998) Learning for Life: Final Report, Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Yetton, P. and Associates (1997) Managing the Introduction of Technology in the Delivery and Administration of Higher Education, Sydney, Fujitsu Centre, Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales, Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.

8

Forging policies in flexible learning Richard Edwards and Alan Tait

This chapter examines the significance and impact of policies aimed at increasing the flexibility of education and training provision as an aspect of the wider promotion of flexibility, what might be termed a ‘governing metaphor’ (Yeatman 1994) for contemporary change. We explore the significance of flexibility within the economy and workplace and some of the possible positions of flexible learning and delivery within those changes. Drawing on explorations in policy analysis we examine the rationales for and effects of moves towards greater flexibility in learning, both in servicing flexibility within the labour market and workplace and in educational and training organisations becoming more flexible themselves. In the process, we argue that the nature of flexible learning is contested and that its influence around the globe is being shaped by what some might term ‘policyborrowing’ and others a ‘policy epidemic’ (Levin 1998) in the context of globalisation. Flexible learning then is in the process of being forged and national and organisational policies are often forged from other sources. This suggests that policies towards flexible learning are part of a wider policy ensemble through which more flexible social and economic practices are promoted, in which organisations and individual identity are constituted increasingly as enterprises. Pivotal to both, in mediating the practices within many workplaces and brokering links with formal providers of learning opportunities, are the practices of human resource development. The chapter illustrates and argues for the need for an analysis and formulation of policy beyond that to be found within the boundaries of education and training, or management and employment, if the significance of flexible learning and human resource development are to be understood and sound policies are to be formulated. This means that policy processes may, as Nunan has indicated in Chapter Four, themselves have to become more flexible.

Forging policies in flexible learning 131 The chapter is in four sections. First, we outline the significance of the deployment of notions of flexibility and human resource development to the contemporary workplace. Second, we discuss the promotion of certain approaches to education and training associated with flexible learning through policy, providing illustrations from a range of policy texts. Third, we briefly sketch some of the consequences for education and training of adopting flexible approaches. Finally, we indicate some of the implications for the contemporary forging of policies in flexible learning.

Forging flexibility1 The academic study of flexibility has developed largely in the analysis of and prescriptions for changes in the economy and workplace. Often it is associated with debates about Fordism, neo-Fordism and postFordism. Flexibility has been promulgated as a response to the economic problems of lack of growth and inflation in many countries in the 1970s. It has been pursued by governments of many different political persuasions and supported by major regional and international economic organisations, such as the European Union (EU) and the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). There are three major schools of thought on the reasons for this emphasis on flexibility: the neo-Smithian, the neo-Schumpeterian and the regulation school (Nielson 1991). In the first, it is the changing nature of markets and the moves from mass to niche markets which is central, resulting in a shift from Fordist mass production to what some term post-Fordist flexible specialisation. Webster (1995) identifies three flexibilities associated with post-Fordism – flexibility of employees, flexibility of production and flexibility of consumption. In the second, the technological and institutional flexibility made possible by information and communications technologies (ICT) results in innovation and productivity gains. The regulation school draws on neo-Marxist economics to posit a contemporary shift in the regime of capital accumulation. As Harvey (1991: 147) argues, the defining qualities of this emerging regime of flexible accumulation are ‘flexibility with respect to labour processes, labour markets, products and patterns of consumption’. This is coupled with widescale application of the new information technologies. While the explanations vary, the characteristics of the changes identified are very much the same in the three approaches. In relation to the workplace, the development of flexibility has been pursued through much of the 1980s and 1990s as central to

132 Richard Edwards and Alan Tait transforming organisations and making them more competitive. If national economies are to be competitive in the increasingly integrated global market, it is argued that they have to be more flexible, and this requires both organisations and individuals to become more flexible as well. Pedagogically, this has been pursued through policies which place increasing emphasis on lifelong and flexible learning, where these are dominantly focused on vocational competence and credentialled learning in which the workplace becomes a central site for learning. Greater emphasis has been placed on the capabilities of workers and the practices through which these are developed. Politically, this has been pursued through deregulation and the legislative transformation of labour relations. The multiskilled, flexible worker has been promoted as paradigmatic of the economically successful organisation, moving from task to task, team-working, problem-solving, and learning as they so do. Alongside and as part of this flexibility has been down-sizing, a casualisation of much employment, changes in the age and gender structure of the labour force, the development of notions of the core and periphery workforce and the growth of insecurity and inequality (Edwards 1997). In the current and coming waves of automation this [industrial] system of standardised full employment is beginning to soften and fray at the margins into flexiblizations of its three supporting pillars: labour law, work site and working hours. … Flexible, pluralized forms of underemployment are spreading. (Beck 1992: 142) Organisations have pursued their own flexibility through a range of strategies – numerical flexibility, functional flexibility, distancing strategies and pay flexibility (Atkinson and Meager 1990). Human resource development has been central to the implementation of these strategies, although its precise impact is dependent on organisational size and the sector of the economy within which it is operating. In the process, there has been the attempt to develop new workplace identities characterised by ‘an ethos of enterprise’. As well as workplaces, workers themselves are subject to practices of management, appraisal and development which position them as enterprising, engaged in an ‘enterprise of the self’. In this position: no matter what hand circumstances may have dealt a person, he or she remains always continuously engaged … in that one enterprise. … In this sense the character of the entrepreneur can no

Forging policies in flexible learning 133 longer be seen as just one among a plurality of ethical personalities but must rather be seen as assuming an ontological priority. (du Gay 1996: 181) Exposure to the risks and costs of their activities are constructed as enabling workers to take responsibility for their actions, signifying a form of ‘empowerment’ and ‘success’ within the organisation. This requires members of the workforce to be developed not simply in the flexible use of skills, but to be engaged affectively, to be ‘empowered’ to participate in shaping the organisation’s goals and practices. In her study of a large manufacturing multinational in the USA, Casey (1996: 320), for instance, argues that: the archetypical new Hephaestus employee is one who enthusiastically manifests the values of dedication, loyalty, self-sacrifice and passion for the product and customer, and who is willing to go the extra mile for his or her team. This entails an active subjectivity aligned to organisational goals, producing what Casey terms ‘designer employees’. Here the alienation of industrialisation is displaced by an enthusiasm for work. This has been particularly marked in those organisations involved in human resource practices such as employee development schemes, action learning sets, quality circles and the like. For many, the downside of this is an intensification of work. On certain readings then, the rigidity and regularities of the Fordist production line have been displaced by the post-Fordist ‘learning organisation’. However, as some argue, this is more myth than reality (Avis 1996), with Taylorist approaches to management continuing, despite the opportunities for changes in the practices of production. These result in the organisational form often termed neoFordism. At both the social and institutional levels, this raises important issues and tensions between flexibility, insecurity and uncertainty. Policies and human resource strategies to promote flexibility may create insecurity which itself can either be left unaddressed or rerregulated. It is fresh forms of institutional and social regulation which for some (see Jessop 1995) are central to moving beyond the flexibility associated with ‘anarchic’ market relations. Flexibility therefore is not a single phenomenon, but is differentiated according to nation, sector, institution and management strategy. As the discussions of flexibility have migrated out of the realms of economics into other areas, such as industrial sociology, cultural

134 Richard Edwards and Alan Tait studies, management, human resource development, education and training, and as the influence of economics has been exerted increasingly on other domains, so the emphases and issues themselves have shifted. In many senses, the positions have become more complex. Early notions of the post-Fordist artisan have given way to more cautious assessments, for there are a range of possible meanings and practices embedded in the pursuit of flexibility as a strategy for economic innovation and renewal. Indeed, the possibilities for innovation can be said to lie in the pedagogic assumptions and management approaches within the specific notions of flexibility adopted. The existence or otherwise of human resource development and the diverse forms it can take are a condition for these different forms of flexibility. In simple terms, Johnson and Lundvall (1991) argue that there are reactive and active forms of flexibility. If flexibility is constructed as an adaptive process, the notion of learning associated with this is stimulus–response. People and organisations are positioned as reactive to externally imposed conditions. Thereby, the possibilities for innovation within such an organisation are constrained. By contrast, if flexibility is constructed as an active process of learning, they argue there are greater possibilities for innovation. Johnson and Lundvall, like Jessop (1995), suggest that cooperation and partnership rather than competition provide the best conditions for innovation. This suggests two ideal types of flexible organisation. First, there is the adaptive type, developing flexibility in response to changing markets wherein innovation is pursued through competition. This promotes insecurity which is left unregulated or unmanaged. Management may be de-layered but remains hierarchical and Taylorist in its approach, a situation of low trust. Human resource development may be absent or marginal to such organisations. Second, there is a more creative type seeking to develop and position itself within markets, where innovation is pursued through cooperation. Here flexibility and insecurity are regulated and managed as a single phenomenon. Different forms of human resource development may be associated with different forms of flexibility and with that, different types of learning, flexible or otherwise. Each may be said to be a ‘learning organisation’, but with differing pedagogical underpinnings: the first, based on stimulus–response; the second developmental, with the degree of development circumscribed by the extent of participation in the decision-making processes of the organisation by the different stakeholders. Flexibility therefore does not inevitably imply a specific set of practices and can itself be contested.

Forging policies in flexible learning 135

Forging policy Trends towards greater flexibility are to be found in workplaces around the globe. They are pursued in part through the public policies of national governments and international organisations. These policies contribute both to certain aspects of globalisation and are part of globalising trends. They are to be seen in economic policies which have seen the deregulation of financial and labour markets. They are also to be seen in policies which seek to more closely tie education and training to the constructed ‘needs’ of the economy and labour markets to become more competitive. The notion of flexibility is forged in policy and in the migration of ideas of flexibility into different contexts in the attempt to engender the flexible practices of globalisation. Policies to enable flexible (l)earning are central to European Commission (EC) policy. For example, in addition to the expanded availability of paper qualifications, an EC (1996: 7) White Paper on teaching and learning advocates that a more open, more flexible approach be adopted alongside it. This approach would in particular encourage the mobility of workers – employers, teachers, researchers – and students. It is today striking to observe how much easier it is for goods, capital and services to move around Europe than it is for people and knowledge. In the context of this chapter, it is not possible to examine the full range of policy forgings of relevance to human resource practices. We will focus therefore on illustrating the forging (ahead) processes in education policies and the increased significance given to flexible learning within them. The discussion of globalisation and educational policy has two interrelated aspects. First, there is the examination of the content of policies as they migrate around the globe. Second, there is the exploration of the processes of migration, of how similar policies emerge in different contexts. In many ways, this discussion has remained bounded by the assumptions and conventions of comparative education, insofar as there is a focus on the unifying effects and homogeneity of policy development around the globe, rather than these developments being examined within the wider understandings of globalisation, wherein trends towards similar policies contain difference and diversity within them. Thus, as we have suggested, even as flexibility has an increasingly global reach, its substance will be very different because of the particular locations in which it is forged. Policy migration can be seen in relation to all sectors of education and training, impacting upon institutional structures, curricula and

136 Richard Edwards and Alan Tait pedagogic practices. As a condition for these impacts and a result of them, the cultures of education and training are being transformed in various ways and with various effects. Levin (1998) identities a certain commonality of themes in the construction and substance of education policy. Although Levin is discussing policy in relation to schooling, the themes can be generalised to all aspects of education and training. First, the need for change is largely cast in economic terms – the enhancement of human resources. Second, there is increasing criticism of education and training and their failure to deliver what is required. Third, changes in education and training are being required without a significant increase in resources from governments. Fourth, educational reform is promoted through changes in forms of governance. Fifth, education and training organisations are being required to work in more commercial and market-like ways. Sixth, there is an increased emphasis on standards, accountability and testing. Similarly, Carter and O’Niell (in Ball 1998: 122) identify five central elements to reforms in education around the globe: 1 2 3 4 5

Improving national economics by tightening the connection between schooling, employment, productivity and trade. Enhancing student outcomes in employment-related skills and competencies. Attaining more direct control over curriculum content and assessment. Reducing the costs of education to government. Increasing community input to education by more direct involvement in school decision-making and pressure of market choice.

Once again, it is important to note that education is here circumscribed by schooling, but the elements can be found across the different sectors. Ball himself (1998) identifies the influences that are resulting in certain commonalities. These are: neo-liberal approaches; new institutional economics; performativity; public choice theory; and new managerialism. These commonalities or forgings give rise to particular forms of flexible learning aimed at increasing responsiveness to certain notions of the market, where there is often an elision of employer and national interest. Usher refers to this phenomenon in Chapter Thirteen and Garrick extends the link when discussing the ‘management of intellectual capital’ in Chapter Fourteen. For instance, according to Unesco policy documents, the sheer pace of technological change has convinced business communities and

Forging policies in flexible learning 137 nations alike of the need for flexibility in the quality of the labour force. Education systems can therefore no longer be expected to train a labour force for stable industrial jobs; they must instead train individuals to be innovative, capable of evolving, adapting to a rapidly changing world and assimilating change (Unesco 1996: 71). It is also interesting to note how, as suggested in a recent Green Paper on lifelong learning in the United Kingdom, flexible learning is itself constructed as an arena of competitive advantage, as well as contributing to the competitiveness of the economy. ‘We currently lead Europe, and possibly the world, in learning technology and flexible learning delivery, and we intend to maintain that lead’ (Secretary of State for Education and Employment 1998: 22). The identification of such trends and influences is important. Yet caution is also necessary. First, the spread of these trends is most readily identified in the English-speaking centres of economic power. Not all countries are in a position to or seek to pursue flexibility as such or through the approaches outlined. Other models of education and skill formation are in existence, some of which may be productive of alternative forms of flexibility. Second, their identification as trends is itself problematic, as it assumes starting points and trajectories which may be those of certain nations, but cannot be generalised to include nations where for instance, initial schooling is not available to all, external impositions allow little scope for innovation, or those wherein direct control of the curriculum has been tight. For example, as Michael Manley, the former political leader of Jamaica, suggests, the corrective programmes imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the structural adjustment programmes by the International Development Bank have massively invaded and compressed the capacity of developing countries to finance the delivery of education in terms of quantitative and qualitative improvement (Manley, in Unesco 1996: 223). A third reason for caution is that the possibilities for curriculum control and influence by bodies external to the providing institution may differ from sector to sector. Universities may be more resistant to flexible learning and working with employers than technical and further education institutions. Thus, as we seek to examine the forging of flexibility and flexible learning in and through policy, we need to be cautious of the inclusions and exclusions inscribed. This is not to deny the importance of examining policy migrations, but there is a question of what is identified, by whom and where, for the migrations will look different from within different locations. Nor will the migrations be singular or unidirectional, as

138 Richard Edwards and Alan Tait recent reviews of higher education in the United Kingdom and Australia illustrate. Thus, in addition to those identified above, it is possible to suggest global forgings in the areas of vocational education and higher education. For instance, in the former there has been the growing influence of competence-based approaches and workbased learning. In the latter, there are shifts towards extended participation and the deployment of open and distance learning approaches. The substance of the forging process under the sign of flexibility and increasingly in support of ‘lifelong learning’, ‘learning organisations’ and a ‘learning society’ is not universal or uniform, and each offers opportunities and constraints on learning opportunities within the workplace and for workers. Thus, as Ball (1998: 126) suggests, national policy-making is inevitably a process of bricolage: a matter of borrowing and copying bits and pieces of ideas from elsewhere, drawing upon and amending locally tried-and-tested approaches, cannibalising theories, research, trends and fashions and not infrequently flailing around for anything at all that looks as though it might work. Generic policies are polyvalent, ‘they are translated into particular interactive and sustainable practices in complex ways’ (Ball 1998: 127). In addition, and as with policy within nation states, international and commercial organisations, there can be various strands in tension and conflict with each other. They also change with the emergence of different economic, social and cultural circumstances. The key point, however, is that the location of policy forgings is as important as the migrations themselves. This brings us to the question of the practices of migration. Levin (1998) suggests that there is little systematic learning in the processes of national policy borrowing and that the latter may be largely symbolic. He suggests the alternative metaphor of the ‘policy epidemic’ to assist in understanding such practices. New agents of disease tend to spread rapidly as they find the hosts that are least resistant. So it is with policy change in education – new ideas move around quite quickly, but their adoption may depend on the need any given government sees itself having. Although many people may be infected with a given disease, the severity can vary greatly (Levin 1998: 139). Using Levin’s metaphor, flexible learning and human resource development might be said to be related ‘diseases’. Here it is possible to suggest a relationship between the notion of policy epidemic and Foucault’s notions of biopower and biopolitics. The former can be seen as a contemporary extension of the latter, as it seeks to reform education and training to extend their capacities to produce healthy,

Forging policies in flexible learning 139 productive and flexible populations. These are the enthusiastic workers who engage in an enterprise of the self in support of their own lifelong (l)earning. Human resource development is central to such capacity building and this is examined by Garrick in Chapter Fourteen. The spread of these diseases may be through a variety of direct and indirect means. The direct means can be through the circulation of ideas based on the movement of individuals among and between certain networks. Politicians, policy advisers and members of ‘think tanks’ migrate around the globe spreading certain messages. The same is true for many academics, employers and managers. There is also the influence of members of international agencies such as the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank. The indirect means may be through the reports, books, the Internet, etc., produced and circulated by individuals and organisations and through the media, including the text you are reading here. The global diaspora of people and ideas through processes of migration enable the spread of policy epidemics and the forging of policies around the globe, including policies on flexible learning. For instance, the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) played a significant role in the creation of European Union policy on open and distance learning. Central to support for open and distance learning in EU policy is its ‘capacity to reproduce through its teaching and learning strategies the qualities of independence and flexibility, which have become the virtuous qualities of the workplace within the EU and elsewhere’ (Tait 1996: 235). Similarly, a Unesco report (1997) on open and distance learning acknowledges the role of the International Council for Distance Education (ICDE) in its appearance – indeed a senior ICDE-sourced individual wrote the report. Like many similar reports, that by Unesco uses flexibility to identify the advantages to adult learners of open and distance learning – for example: ‘for the student/open learner open and distance learning means increased access and flexibility, as well as the combination of work and education’ (Unesco 1997: 1); and ‘open learning also means a more learner-centred approach, allowing greater flexibility and choice of content as well as organisation of the learning programme’ (Unesco 1997: 8). The report is clear how such approaches also serve employer and government interests within the context of lifelong learning policy. Thus, the ways in which international policy is created, which appears to emerge out of a vacuum with an impersonal and universalised authority, in fact has certain epidemiological characteristics.

140 Richard Edwards and Alan Tait

Forging flexible learning Most of the examination of flexibility has been in the profit-making areas of the economy. However, flexibility has been demanded also of non-profit and public sector organisations, including education and training organisations, to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. New public management approaches have been adopted, positioning the state as purchaser rather than provider of services. There has been increased emphasis on management, responsiveness to customers and the adoption of neo- and post-Fordist practices. The forging of flexibility in education and training thus has a dual aspect. On the one hand, the role of education and training is to service the flexibility required to support economic competitiveness and lifelong learning. Jessop identifies a number of possible consequences of flexibility for education and training: there will be process innovation through distance learning systems backed up by telecommunications, video and computer equipment; and through the use of computers in secondary and tertiary education. And organisationally, there will be new educational packages for community education and the educationally disadvantaged; plus educational packages combined with entertainment for home use. (1991: 101) Interestingly and surprisingly, he does not identify the potential to provide for workplace flexibility and extend the possibilities for human resource development. On the other hand, institutions themselves become subject to differing regimes of flexibility – reactive and/or active (Edwards 1993; Wilmot and McLean 1994; Taylor 1997) – and an associated positioning within a market-place for education and training goods and services. Organisational flexibility thereby provides the possibilities for innovation and the development of greater flexibility in learning. Where employers and employees enter the marketplace for learning opportunities, there is greater potential for institutional providers to deliver. Such developments raise many questions, the answers to which may be different according to one’s workplace and role within it. We will outline briefly a few points for consideration arising from moves towards flexible learning. The contribution of information and communications technologies (ICT) to different pedagogic strategies is undeniable. Indeed the

Forging policies in flexible learning 141 deployment of ICT for some may be paradigmatic of flexibility, thereby ignoring other forms of flexibility which do not require technological mediation. For example, the United Kingdom government’s 1998 policy document on lifelong learning makes reference to flexible learning as part of its discussion of technology and learning (Secretary of State for Education and Employment 1998: 22–23), leaving a wider claim for flexibility as a means to extending and enhancing access to a subsidiary paper on further education (Department for Education and Employment 1998). However, ICT itself has a number of possibilities and effects, including for instance: the compression of space and time associated with processes of globalisation; the growth of open and distance learning; and the commodification and performativity of knowledge. Here, the ‘usefulness’ of knowledge becomes the key criterion for assessing its value, a usefulness often tied to impact in the workplace. However, flexible learning can be more widely read than simply being about the deployment of ICT. Indeed ICT may not be the sole determinant of the consequences with which it is associated. In this respect, the marketisation and vocationalisation of learning opportunities, widely promoted through policy, may be more significant contributions to commodification, as expressed in the moves towards clear statements of learning outcomes or competences and the increasing importance of notions of intellectual property. A central characteristic of flexible learning is that it is no longer constrained within the physical boundaries of education and training institutions. This increases and extends possibilities for access, including in and through the workplace, although at the same time offering potential for new exclusions, as evidence on participation in workplace learning suggests (McGivney 1994). Here, traditional forms of pedagogy and the authority of education and training institutions in some ways may be subverted by alternative sources such as the learning organisation, even as flexible learning provides the possibilities for extending the authority of those institutions more widely through the social formation. Who controls learning and indeed what constitutes a curriculum, and a learning text, becomes subject to greater external negotiation. (Thorpe further explores this terrain in Chapter Ten.) A key point here is that human resource development can broker links between learners in the workplace and providers of learning opportunities, but questions of power remain as to who decides what – the worker, the employer, the trade union, the human resource practitioner, the provider? There are complex negotiations at play and there may be limits on the flexibility allowed.

142 Richard Edwards and Alan Tait As the formal sites of learning are extended into the workplace, disciplinary practices are both stretched out across the social formation, but are not the monopoly of the institutions of the nation state. Curriculum and pedagogy become subject to negotiation, the former often positioned as responding to individual need, but usually located within organisational constraints and goals, the latter involving ‘cooperation’ between tutors and workplace trainers or mentors. This can result in tensions between those in educational institutions, employers and professional bodies due to cultural clashes and mutual misunderstandings (Cunningham et al. 1997). Indeed, Rowan points out in Chapter Nine, tensions can exist between organisations and women, specifically in developing appropriate learning programmes. Flexible learning then may be said to both reduce the disciplinary power of particular institutional practices, but at the same time extend and reconfigure forms of learning and governance – in some ways both literally and metaphorically ‘keeping learners in their places’ (Nicoll and Edwards 1997). Here the ‘place’ of the learner in their learning setting is foregrounded rather than that of the provider. Geographical dispersal and the compression of space–time through the use and speed of ICT thereby can be said to enhance flexible learning’s contribution to flexible accumulation. Learners and providers no longer need to be in the same place, or even nation state. Forms of flexible learning act as dispersal strategies, the extent of this process partly dependent on the media through which the learning is made available. The sending of printed materials through the post brings about a specific temporal relationship between places, one which is transformed through, for instance, the use of computer networking. Flexibility enables learning to take place in settings closer to other aspects of the learner’s life. As workplaces become dispersed, so do the opportunities to learn. This both enhances possibilities for access, participation and lifelong learning, but within policy and funding regimes which place decreased emphasis on state support and increased importance on employers and individuals to fund their own learning – no doubt, through those most flexible of friends: credit cards! Here questions of quality and consistency in assessment and accreditation come to the fore, as the practices of flexible learning, such as franchising, and the recognition and accreditation of prior learning, extend the sites for learning. Within this situation neo-liberal economics may be bound together powerfully with those of ‘flexible learning’, where the dynamic is one of increasing incitement to consume learning and learning to consume, in order to maintain earnings, consumption and work.

Forging policies in flexible learning 143 Flexible learning becomes synonymous with flexible earning, raising questions as to the fraud inscribed in such forged claims.

Forging a conclusion? The above is suggestive of a number of issues. First, policies towards flexible learning need to be examined as part of the wider policy ensemble to which flexibility is central, in particular the moves to support flexible workplaces and labour markets. Early-nineteenthcentury education and training, with the primary purpose of instilling ‘habits of regularity, subordination of routine, and monotonous work and strict discipline’ (Green 1992: 52), are displaced by the flexibility required by and for lifelong learning. This involves the reconstruction of time; either a more functional use of time which is essentially customer-centred or one which is built around the collapse of private time as a legitimate reward and relief from labour. Second, while broad trends might be identified within workplace and labour market policies, their manifestations can take a variety of forms between and within nations and workplaces. With that are associated a variety of practices of human resource development, including the lack of such practices. Third, the forms of flexible learning being developed to support globalised economies are themselves not uniform or universal. Social, economic, political, cultural and technological factors engender mutations of the policy viruses. Fourth, the diverse practices of human resource development need to be located within the policy ensemble of which they are a part and to which they contribute – and indeed need to be examined as to their impact in promoting innovation to a greater or lesser extent than insecurity. Fifth, and of particular importance for this chapter, the study of policy in this area needs to be located within the broader discussion of globalisation, of which it is both a part and to which it contributes. Closer examination of the particular forgings are now underway. Indeed, even though the substance and the practices of forging are necessary, more flexible and globalised forms of policy analysis are equally necessary. This is suggestive of a reflexive stance in which we accept we too are part of the practices we seek to understand and to which this chapter itself contributes. The irony is of course that the forging of this chapter itself produces a forgery! Note 1

Parts of this section appear also in Edwards and Nicoll (1999).

144 Richard Edwards and Alan Tait

References Atkinson, J. and Meager, N. (1990) ‘Changing working patterns: how companies achieve flexibility to meet new needs’, in G. Esland (ed.) Education, Training and Employment, Volume 1, Wokingham: AddisonWesley. Avis, J. (1996) ‘The myth of the post-Fordist society’, in J. Avis, M. Bloomer, G. Esland, D. Gleeson and P. Hodkinson Knowledge and Nationhood, London: Cassell. Ball, S. (1998) ‘Big policies/small world: an introduction to international perspectives in education policy’, Comparative Education, 34, 2: 119–130. Beck, U. (1992) The Risk Society, London: Sage. Casey, C. (1996) Work, Self, Society: After Industrialism, London: Routledge. Cunnigham, S., Tapsall, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Bagdon, K. and Flew, T. (1997) New Media and Borderless Education: A Review of the Convergence Between Global Media Networks and Higher Education Provision, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Department for Education and Employment (1998) Further Education for the New Millennium: Response to the Kennedy Report, London: DfEE. du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work, London: Sage. Edwards, R. (1993) ‘Multi-skilling the flexible workforce in post-compulsory education and training’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 17, 1: 44–51. —— (1997) Changing Places? Flexibility, Lifelong Learning and a Learning Society, London: Routledge. Edwards, R. and Nicoll, K. (1999) ‘Governing metaphors: flexibility and flexible learning in the education and training of adults’, in G. Foley (ed.) Understanding Adult Education and Training, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin. European Commission (1996) Teaching and Learning: Towards a Learning Society, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Green, A. (1992) Education and State Formation, the Rise of Education Systems in England, France and the USA, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Harvey, D. (1991) The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Jessop, B. (1991) ‘The welfare state in the transition from Fordism to postfordism’, in B. Jessop, H. Kastendiek, K. Nielsen and O. Pedersen (eds) The Politics of Flexibility, Aldershot: Edward Elgar. —— (1995) ‘The regulation approach, governance and post-fordism: perspectives on economic and political change’, Economy and Society, 24, 3: 307–333. Johnson, B. and Lundvall, B. (1991) ‘Flexibility and institutional learning’, in B. Jessop, H. Kastendiek, K. Nielsen and O. Pedersen (eds) The Politics of Flexibility, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Forging policies in flexible learning 145 Levin, B. (1998) ‘An epidemic of education policy: (what) can we learn from each other?’, Comparative Education, 34, 2: 131–141. McGivney, V. (1994) Wasted Potential: Training and Career Progression for Part-time and Temporary Workers, Leicester: NIACE. Nielson, K. (1991) ‘Towards a flexible future – theories and politics’, in B. Jessop, H. Kastendiek, K. Nielsen and O. Pedersen (eds) The Politics of Flexibility, Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Nicoll, K. and Edwards, R. (1997) ‘Open learning and the demise of discipline?’, Open Learning, 12, 3: 14–24. Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1998) The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain, London: Stationary Office. Tait, A. (1996) ‘Open and distance learning policy in the European Union 1985–1995’, Higher Education Policy, 9, 3: 221–238. Taylor, P. (1997) ‘Creating contexts conducive to flexibility’, Studies in Continuing Education, 19, 2: 112–123. Unesco (1996) Learning: The Treasure Within: Report to Unesco of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century, Paris, Unesco. —— (1997) Open and Distance Learning: Prospects and Policy Considerations, Paris: Unesco. Webster, F. (1995) Theories of the Information Society, London: Routledge. Wilmot, M. and McLean, M. (1994) ‘Evaluating flexible learning’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 18, 3: 99–108. Yeatman, A. (1994) Postmodern Revisionings of the Political, London: Routledge.

Part III

The implications of flexible learning for practice

9

‘Human’ resource management, ‘flexible’ learning and difference A feminist exploration Leonie Rowan

In current economic, political and social contexts there is significant pressure on educators and employers to respond to what are regularly defined as increasingly diverse student and employee populations. This requires attention to the needs of those (such as women) who, historically, have had limited access to both education and employment. Conceptualising the ‘needs’ of these women in productive and non-reductive ways, however, is not a simple task. Even with the best of intentions it is easy to homogenise and to essentialise the categories ‘women students’ or ‘women workers’ in ways which deny the differences within the group and which ultimately contribute to the categorisation of women as different to men and naturally suited to different contexts and experiences. This chapter looks at the difficulties associated with responding productively to women’s needs within contemporary education and workplace contexts. I will do this through a feminist exploration of some of the current pressures on educators, trainers and employers who are attempting to develop an appropriately skilled and educated workforce. Theoretically, I draw on Elizabeth Grosz’s description of the two phases of many feminist projects: phase one, the necessarily ‘negative’ or ‘reactive’ dimension of feminist theory characterised by challenges to ‘what currently exists, or criticising prevailing social, political, and theoretical relations’ which involves: serious questioning of patriarchal adherence to the following: universal concepts of truth and methods of verifying truth; objectivity; a disembodied, rational sexually indifferent subject and the explanation of women’s specificity in terms that are inherently masculine. (Grosz 1990: 59)

150 Leonie Rowan Phase two, in Grosz’s framework, is the constructive, positive dimension of feminism: energy directed into the development of creative alternatives to mainstream, masculinist practices (Grosz 1990: 59). This dimension celebrates women’s abilities to resist, challenge and transform phallocentric systems of thought and their material consequences. Drawing on Grosz’s work, the chapter explores, in five sections, one particular form of university education. In the first two sections, I will review briefly what I see as the key economic and equity debates which contribute to the complex environment within which any university education in Australia now occurs. Then, I will outline how these pressures can be seen to have shaped the development of an innovative and exciting Australian open university programme (Open Learning Australia: OLA). In the next section, I will identify the important ways in which OLA meets some identified needs of women, but also highlight some of the ways in which it is unable to respond fully to the differences among this heterogeneous group. In the fifth and final section, I will explore one theoretical resource which illustrates how differences can be productively identified and constructively responded to – through an application of Rosi Braidotti’s theory of difference when considering women as OLA students. In the analysis of OLA which structures the chapter I am interested in the ways in which educators are able to work through the difficulties associated with denaturalising the notion of ‘woman’ as an unproblematic category and producing educational opportunities which are able to respond to the heterogeneity of this group. This requires an acknowledgment of both the existing achievements of, and the future challenges facing, OLA. This analysis is intended to function, therefore, not as critique or evaluation, but as a reading of a clearly significant initiative which can also highlight some productive future directions. As any future is necessarily tied to current contexts, I will begin the chapter with an overview of two sets of pressures which I believe are helping to structure educational programmes in Australia in the late 1990s.

Economic contexts Within the contemporary economic context associated with forces of globalisation, small, medium and large enterprises (be they privately or publicly owned) are under pressure to operate in more efficient and effective ways. Discourses of economic rationalism and global

A feminist exploration 151 competitiveness routinely define this efficiency in terms of an ability to increase profit margins and they generally align the competitive organisation with strategies such as niche marketing, value adding, customer service and a flexible workforce (for discussion see Emy 1993; Carnoy et al. 1993). In this context, the ‘learning organisation’ which, according to Watkins and Marsick (1993), learns continually and has the capacity to transform itself, is often represented in positive terms. Indeed, much is made of the need for employers to maximise their human resource potential in this transformative process. This growing emphasis on the importance of human resources and the workers who constitute ‘human capital’ (Edvinnson and Malone 1997) draws attention to the perceived need of corporations to make strategic use of professional development or training opportunities. The so-called ‘knowledge workers’ now keenly sought by employers must be appropriately skilled (and flexible); workforce participartion is also seen as a key criterion for financial success (for an exploration of learning in contemporary corporate workplaces see Garrick 1998). This ‘human capital’ conception of education, learning and training has been endorsed by various OECD governments – emphasising the need for their populations to become more educated and to work ‘smarter’. In the Australian context, the kinds of education and training necessary to achieve an educated nation and an upskilled workforce also need to demonstrate their own efficiencies. This often entails being seen to articulate with a workforce that is ‘flexible’ – with staff more likely to be positioned as part of the peripheral rather than the core labour market (Kenway 1998), whilst also being flexible enough to allow these same staff access to education or training in their own time and at their own place – a situation which seemingly benefits both the employee and the employer, though for clearly different reasons. For these and other related reasons, it has become common for workplace education and training debates to be linked to forms of education which can be identified with one or more dimensions of what is often described as flexible or open learning. As Walker and McIlroy note, for many people: Open learning is perceived as the means of attaining industry objectives to ensure relevant training and development, meeting end-user needs and achieving stated government imperatives for quality programmes within a more democratic education system. (Walker and McIlroy 1994: 508)

152 Leonie Rowan Both open learning and flexibility are highly contested terms, as Nunan shows us in Chapter Four, and attempts to define what they are or are not have given rise to many conference papers, articles and books. In the 1980s open learning was commonly associated with open entry or easy access to education (Walker and McIlroy 1994: 501), and linked often to the kinds of educational opportunities epitomised by the Open University in Britain. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, debates around the ‘true’ meaning of openness were fuelled by Greville Rumble’s important caution that: there is evidence that the term ‘open learning’ is sometimes being used to describe forms of provision which are anything but open. By allowing the term to be used wrongly, we are in danger of having the wool pulled over our eyes. (Rumble 1989: 28) The debate sparked by Rumble has led both to efforts to differentiate distance education from open learning, and concerns about the risks of reifying (or even demonising) either educational option unproblematically. It is not within the scope of this chapter to revisit all of the dimensions of these debates. It is useful to note, however, that in the late 1990s open learning has been often associated with such ‘core elements’ as: •

•

flexibility, in terms of when and where the study programme and assessment can be undertaken and the concomitant use of distance education methods/techniques and technologies (Johnson 1990), and varying degrees of openness in terms of entry requirements and a commitment and ability to identify and respond to the needs of the learners and to value student experience (Burge and Lenskyj 1990).

What I am seeking to illustrate here is that a contemporary context which emphasises the importance of a skilled workforce within the broader framework of economic rationalism will inevitably be attracted to courses which are flexible or open, because they offer desirable skills whilst also being cost effective. Thus contemporary economic contexts have helped to foster the development of particular versions of flexible education or training. The resultant programme of study is seen to maximise the potential of an organisation, whilst simultaneously allowing a particular educational

A feminist exploration 153 provider, such as a university, to respond to the needs of various target groups and thus capture a significant market share.

Equity agendas Whilst these economic agendas clearly shape educational responses, in many countries the flexible learning ‘products’ which result are also read as desirable responses to another contextual issue. At the same time as they confront economic rationalism, universities and other educational providers are also grappling with an increasing awareness of arguments associated with equity and, at the very least, with current legislative contexts which require some commitment to recognising and responding to issues of gender equity within the workforce. The introduction of various forms of anti-discrimination and affirmative action legislation has sensitised employers to the need to provide at least a base level of support for women in the labour market. When read alongside the need for workers to become ‘smarter’ and more efficient, workplace gender reforms raise the disturbing (and ironically, economically inefficient) possibility that the ‘worker’ is not an unproblematic category and that the human resources in question are in fact gendered resources (see Probert 1999; and Sullivan and Whitehouse 1996). This involves recognising much more than the obvious fact that both women and men are participating in the labour market. Indeed, the most significant fact is that women and men can participate in very different ways within the same economic environment. To be even more specific, when women and men are employed with identical professional qualifications (such as education degrees) and thus have technically the same kinds of employment or career opportunities, there are still significant differences between the ways women and men experience the workplace. An example of this is that the majority (63 per cent) of people employed in the teaching profession are women. However, women are more likely than men to work in early childhood or primary schools than in secondary schools or, indeed, universities (Women’s Policy Unit 1995; Australian Bureau of Statistics 1996). Women are more commonly given responsibility for ‘pastoral’ or ‘nurturing’ activities (Milligan et al. 1994); they demonstrate a greater reluctance than men to apply for promotion (Logan and Dempster 1992); and they are also less likely than men to actually be appointed as principals (Milligan et al. 1994). The kind of determinist logic which denies the significance of

154 Leonie Rowan these labour market characteristics also tends to regard as unproblematic the fact that the unpaid labour necessary to ensure the smooth running of the public sector is routinely conducted by women. Cass (1995: 38) makes this point well when she writes that: Public policies in Australia, as in other similar capitalist welfare states, have been based on sex and gender differences. This is particularly apparent in the definition of what is to be called work – whether and to what extent work is rewarded. Such notions determine who will have the responsibility and obligation to work in several spheres – that is, in the family/household and community as well as in the market – and thus be ‘tainted’ with the appellation ‘dependent’, and who will be largely exempt from the dual burden and expected to work only or predominantly in the market and thus be accorded the status of ‘independent’ economic citizen. (Cass 1995: 38) I am arguing here that it is important to read the economic and ‘equitable’ climate outlined above through the lens provided by this kind of feminist analysis. For whilst globalisation (with its many and varied interpretations) has constructed at least a market-based consciousness of the rewards of an efficient economy, feminist research and attendant public policies have also identified the importance of recognising that the resources one is attempting to make ‘more efficient’ are themselves shaped by different and differing social and political pressures (Yeatman 1994). To put it very simply, women and men do not routinely occupy the same workplace territory even if they share the same office. There are several points which it is now necessary to emphasise. If one recognises that ‘the workforce’ not only involves men but also women, and if one therefore accepts that women, as much as men, are in need of workplace training, opportunities either to maintain their current positions or to effectively enter the workforce, then one must also accept at least the possibility that the kinds of training to be provided cannot realistically be targeted at one homogenous group. As already identified, women occupy different spaces in the workforce to men, they are more likely to be employed in part-time, contract positions and they spend more of their time in the home (Townsend and McLennan 1995; Davidson and Burke 1994). This means that opportunities for women to undertake the kind of professional development or training which is most likely to be valued

A feminist exploration 155 within current economic discourses are mediated by both their status in the workplace and their status in the home. These points raise particular challenges for those involved in the development of education and training programmes who are committed to the inclusion of women within these programmes. This, of course, is not a new problem and educators have employed a diverse range of strategies over the past twenty years to meet this goal (for discussion see Rowan 1997). Two strategies have been particularly common: in the first, women are encouraged into ‘mainstream’ educational programmes through recruitment and ‘support programmes’ targeted at particular fields of study including, for example, Women in Engineering, Women in Computing, Women into Science and Technology. In many cases, these programmes are structured along fairly egalitarian principles which argue that if women are provided with encouragement and opportunities to enter a profession or field of study, then they will flourish if they are good enough as individuals. In the second key strategy, women have been offered educational opportunities which are designed to accommodate what are seen as the realities of women’s lived experiences. This brings us back to the perceived importance within this context of flexible, open or distance modes of education. As earlier research has argued, women have often been willing to undertake off-campus or external study: programmes of education or training which they are able to ‘fit in’ with their other commitments. In Faith and Coulter’s terms, offcampus study is seen as valuable for women, as it potentially ‘ameliorates some of the most difficult aspects of classroom education for women’ (1988: 196). Both economic and equity agendas, therefore, can be seen to support the development and celebration of forms of educational delivery which are flexible enough to accommodate the needs of a particular workforce. In the next section of this chapter I will explore the ways in which Australia’s system of open learning can be read as a highly desirable and very successful response to these contexts. I will then identify some of the advantages and disadvantages of this model in terms of its abilities to respond to the diversity of women. Here it is my goal to identify not only what I see as limitations within certain readings of ‘women’ as ‘learners’, but also to posit productive alternatives to these readings in order to contribute to the transformation of those environments which routinely accord women different status and rights than men. With this over-arching goal in mind, I will move now to an overview of the ways in which women

156 Leonie Rowan have been constructed as learners with special needs in Australian higher education and the link between this construction and the emergence of OLA. This is not intended to function as a critique of OLA, which is a programme for which I have considerable respect. It is my goal, rather, to highlight the ways in which bringing new theoretical resources to bear on an analysis of the OLA context (in its relationship to women students) has the potential to generate even better educational and lifestyle outcomes for women.

On open learning Australia In 1990 the Australian Federal Government Department of Employment, Education and Training released the discussion paper entitled A Fair Chance for All which identified six disadvantaged student groups not adequately represented within existing student profiles. This plan gave rise to a variety of equity campaigns throughout Australian higher education. The majority of these equity initiatives were still bound by the traditional university policies in relation to entry qualifications, course structures and degree costs, and operated largely on the assumption that students would be able to (and indeed, should) participate in on-campus study. A significant number of educational providers offered programmes to be studied at a distance, but these were generally subject to the same kinds of entry requirements as traditional, on-campus courses of study (for a brief overview of Australia’s historical association with open learning and distance education see Johnson 1990). In terms of its ability to meet the needs of the designated equity groups, the most significant challenge to the on-campus, regulated entry, fixed structure model was posed, in 1992, by the trial implementation of Open Learning within the Australian higher education system. The ‘vision’ for the TV Open Learning (TVOL) pilot included: • •

• • •

extended access to disadvantaged groups; provision of a ‘taste’ of higher education to those in the community who would not normally consider enrolling in a higher education institution; the use of television as a teaching mode for higher education; the capacity for open learning students to receive credit for work done towards a formal higher education qualification; operation at minimal additional cost to the Commonwealth. (Keepes et al. 1993: 1–1)

A feminist exploration 157 While this project was not explicitly aimed at the educational needs of women, it is important to observe that, in this historical period, women were still seen as disadvantaged in terms of their educational access and that the majority of students who took part in the pilot programme (and subsequent evaluation) were women (Keepes et al. 1993). After this evaluation of the trial project: a consortium of universities, led by Monash University, was granted funding to implement the national Open Learning Initiative through the Open Learning Agency of Australia Pty Ltd (Open Learning Australia), a private company specially incorporated for the purpose and owned by Monash University. (Atkinson et al. 1995: 1) Clearly, federal government agendas were being met by the establishment of OLA. In a sense, however, the motives of the government are less significant than the model of education which resulted. Consistent with the model of TVOL, OLA was to be guided by certain basic educational principles including: • • • • • •

open admission; the provision of subjects which reflect ‘Australia’s needs’; flexible delivery; equity of access; certified outcomes; high standards. (Latchem and Pritchard 1994: 18)

Of all these ‘visionary’ components, the stated priority has regularly been given to issues of access. Atkinson et al. provide a representative comment in their 1995 evaluation of OLA: The Initiative seeks to provide all Australians with access to tertiary studies regardless of age, location or educational qualifications and to enable them to undertake their studies at their own pace, at a place and time convenient to them and at a cost broadly equivalent to that of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme [HECS]. (Atkinson et al. 1995: 1) In the twin economic and equity contexts outlined above, the positive press that has subsequently surrounded OLA is not surprising. Nor,

158 Leonie Rowan indeed, was the decision to continue with the initiative. Expanding in the past three years to involve twenty-one universities in the provision of almost 200 units (and three possible degrees: Bachelor of Arts; Bachelor of General Studies; Bachelor of Business Studies), Open Learning Australia could reasonably be seen as one of the high points of equity initiatives in the history of Australian higher education. Certainly, within the research that informs this chapter, OLA is celebrated by the students it serves as a site where ‘disadvantaged’ groups such as women are finally provided with access to educational opportunities that were not elsewhere available. Indeed, from the perspective of the people it has helped, it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that OLA solved an educational crisis – for women, rural and isolated people, the disabled and other equity groups. However, there are other questions that need to be examined. King argues that ‘part of the conventional wisdom of distance education in Australia is that it is about access and equity’ (1991: 21). This point appears to relate as much to the emerging OLA as to distance education and, like King, I am interested in testing this ‘conventional wisdom’ through a careful rereading of some dimensions of OLA. Baudrillard (1983) describes a social or political process that may create or embrace scandal in order to reinscribe the desirability of the original system. He writes: ‘the denunciation of scandal always pays homage to the law’ (Baudrillard 1983: 27) and argues that in the process of identifying and responding to social, political or ‘moral’ crises (such as those highlighted by cultural theorists in regard to issues of access and equity), institutions have a remarkable capacity to turn ‘scandal to regenerative ends’: that is, to create the illusion of ‘purification’ and, from this basis, to move happily into the (same old) future. This can occur regardless of the good intentions and genuine commitment of individuals associated with various initiatives as the framework which governs and interprets their practices is not necessarily within their control. From this point of view, it is possible to see reform or transformative projects such as OLA (or other workplace reforms such as affirmative action programmes) as either disruptions to the kinds of dominant cultural practices which marginalise women, or reinscriptions of the same cultural practices. It is also possible, however, to adopt a more useful both/and framework – to read them simultaneously as both disruptions and reinscriptions. Such a conception provides a useful starting point for moving beyond an easy celebration of OLA’s achievements into a more cautious exploration of what

A feminist exploration 159 it is that OLA has achieved and what it may still aspire to achieve. Whilst it is important to acknowledge that there is more than one view of why the Australian government moved towards OLA, and whilst women were not necessarily the prime target group for the initiative, it is nevertheless legitimate to investigate the extent to which OLA has been able to respond to its women students. Indeed, from a feminist perspective it is legitimate to ask this question of any educational programme or structure. Furthermore, it is important to remain aware that OLA refers to a loose collective of individuals, units and students and does not necessarily relate to any particular philosophical, pedagogical or theoretical approach to women’s educational needs (Latour 1993: 121). This exploration, then, is the basis of the next section of the chapter. For the analysis I will draw on interviews I conducted with women studying through OLA and I am interested in exploring, first, the ways in which these women conceptualise the benefits and disadvantages of being an open learning student and, second, the difficulty that many of these women experience when they attempt to articulate points of discontent.

Positive and negative responses to open learning Women’s ‘positive’ experiences The data explored in this section was extracted from semi-structured, open-ended interviews with women, who responded to a mail-out seeking women interested in discussing their experiences of OLA.1 The women ranged in age from eighteen to somewhere in their sixties or seventies, they had diverse educational backgrounds and were all interested in entering or continuing to participate in the workplace. The women responded in a positive manner to questions relating to the extent to which OLA lived up to its (or its advocates’) claims of flexibility. They commented positively on the absence of prerequisite academic qualifications: Open Learning has given me opportunities that had been closed to me for a long time. I guess I’m one of the people that fall through the crack, in that I found it extraordinarily difficult to gain a university place. I had applied before and had been

160 Leonie Rowan knocked back. I found that frustrating because it was a lack of opportunity. (Susan) The fact that there is no competition for places was identified: They didn’t ask too many questions. I think basically if you pay your money, you get to do the course. (Sharon) The ability for students to study in their own time and place was appreciated: A lot of these [other types of] courses are conducted in the evening at the university and you have to get there and work out who is going to mind the kids. (Susan) The benefits of no set combination of subjects, a wide choice of subjects and four study periods was similarly appreciated: If you’re doing distance education, you have to go for the whole year and you have to study the courses they say you have to study at the time they say you have to study them. Whereas with Open Learning, you’ve got four terms during the year, and if one term you decide you’ve got too many commitments this term, then you can let it go. Or you can take two courses or maybe just take one. Apart from that, you’ve still got the exams in the same way and the assignments are still due when you have committed yourself to a term of work. It’s just much more flexible really. (Beth) These comments reflect what is generally the very positive attitude of the women towards OLA, and appear to justify the good publicity which generally surrounds the open learning initiative and the positive evaluations it has received (Atkinson et al. 1995; Keepes et al. 1993). This appreciative tone is consistent with other research which argues that, regardless of other problematic consequences, off-campus study can be a good option for women as it allows them to access educational opportunities which they otherwise would not have had. Various dimensions of this argument have been explored by a range of authors (Faith and Coulter 1988;

A feminist exploration 161 Grace 1994; Evans and King 1991; Burge and Lenskyj 1990; Coulter 1989). Coulter provides one significant point of view when she writes: Every day women cope with the limitations placed on their lives by lack of money and time, by distance and geographical location, by inadequate child care and public transportation systems. … In this context, distance education is not part of the problem. It is part of the solution. (Coulter 1989: 12–13) What is perhaps more interesting, however, is that in all of these celebratory comments, the women are assessing OLA on the terms established by OLA itself. That is to say, they are using the criteria which OLA believes demonstrate its value as a basis upon which to assess its value. If, as is regularly stated: The Initiative seeks to provide all Australians with access to tertiary studies regardless of age, location or educational qualifications and to enable them to undertake their studies at their own pace, at a place and time convenient to them and at a cost broadly equivalent to that of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme [HECS], (Atkinson et al. 1995: 1) then it is quite clear that the women interviewed believe that OLA has met these goals. However, while these and similar responses to OLA make valuable points, I am interested in pushing the interrogation of what OLA offers women a little further. An entry into this exploration is also provided by the women interviewed; a close reading of the interview transcripts makes it relatively easy to identify a range of areas in which the women were less than content, even though they did not appear to have easy access to the kind of vocabulary that would allow them to articulate this discontent and appeared nervous about offering their own opinion on these practices. This discontent is particularly clear when the women speak about issues of assessment, cost and the transferability and legitimate nature of their study. For the purposes of this chapter I will concentrate on the issue of assessment.

162 Leonie Rowan ‘I nearly fell off my seat’: reactions to assessment For the women that I spoke to, assessment is virtually synonymous with examination. While there were assignments in all units, the largest and final piece of assessment was in all cases an examination. This is consistent with OLA policy on unit assessment. The women’s reactions to exams were uniformly negative: Exams absolutely terrify me. I’d gone thirty years without an exam and I really get nervous. I sat several with an invigilator in the house and several where I’ve had to go into the city and do them. I don’t know how to get over exam nerves. (Margaret) The exam for that subject [psychology] at the end of the course – I didn’t like that at all – it was a hundred multiple-choice questions and an essay. I felt a lot of pressure with that exam. (Joanne) The very first exam I went for, well I used to have trouble filling in a lotto ticket, where they say not to go over the square because if you do, you’ve got an extra number or something. So when I got my first exam sheet, I think there were 90 questions with three choices. All these little squares, I’d never seen so many. I nearly fell off my seat. Those things I’d never experienced before: I’d been out of the system for so long. It was painstaking. I was frightened to go over the edge anywhere with all these little squares. (Eileen) Students were similarly negative about the timing of the exams: the initial positive of flexible study periods becomes a distinct negative: What is extraordinarily stressful is that I’ve permitted myself two units per quarter. However, the examination sometimes comes three or even six months after the end of the unit, which means the next quarter, I’m really doing three subjects, because I’ve got to keep revising that subject so that I’m examination ready. It can get to the stage where you’re really doing four units because you’re doing revision of what you’ve already done. You can’t really drop something for six months then pick it up again a

A feminist exploration 163 week before and expect it to be fresh in your mind – well I can’t anyway. (Susan) ‘I suppose I shouldn’t say this … ’: critiquing the assessment The concern expressed, however indirectly, by these women, resonates with points made by various educators concerning the challenges that any open learning system pose to traditional notions of assessment. As Bosworth (1991: 32) acknowledges, ‘the development of open and flexible learning, and new attitudes to methods of assessing people’s “worth”, go hand in hand’. Moodie also notes that the insistence by Monash University (which led the successful OLA consortium bid) on ‘one piece of externally invigilated assessment for each unit … brought about further closure of the curriculum and reduced flexibility in the pace of learning’ (1993: 174). There are, of course, many reasons why examinations are incorporated into university assessment practices, and in the case of OLA, discussions of assessment options have raised issues relating to the ‘integrity’ or ‘standard’ of particular units and their comparability with other ‘traditional’ university subjects, as well as the need to ensure that assessment has been authored by the enrolled student. As I have said earlier, however, I am not so much interested in critiquing those who made the decision to include examinations within OLA assessment, as I am in identifying the consequences of this choice for women and highlighting what educators and trainers can learn from these consequences. It is also of interest to identify the extent to which students find themselves reluctant to critique this particular form of assessment, regardless of the institutional, political or educational imperatives which justified or, indeed, compelled its use. Consider the following quotations from students: The exams were good. To tell you the truth, I found Open Learning quite easy, compared to school. … Well, obviously I get stressed and freaked out about exams and feel sick and everything like that, but I found these exams to be pretty good. (Diana) Some of the essays were really broad. I suppose I shouldn’t say this, but I like essays where you’ve got a specific question and you have to answer that question. (Joanne)

164 Leonie Rowan These quotations indicate both the women’s awareness of their own dissatisfaction but also, and just as importantly, their own sense of the inevitability of what it is that university education is really about. For the women that we have interviewed, the practices associated with the institutions they study through appear so natural and normal that it is difficult for them to conceptualise the fact that it could be otherwise. (It is possible that the same could be said of those who ensured that assessment was tied to examination.) Evidence of institutional largesse such as the ‘granting’ of access to those who never really expected it can always work to silence voices of resistance. As bell hooks argues, speech about ‘disadvantaged’ groups is neither automatically, nor even predominantly, a positive thing: ‘Often this speech about the “other” is also a mask, an oppressive talk hiding gaps, absences. … Often this speech about the “other” annihilates, erases’ (hooks 1990: 343). ‘In my generation … ’: women making do In order to adopt a critical perspective and to contest those practices which have been normalised, women would need to resist normative responses to the experience of disadvantage and to ask the kind of questions which, for the majority of their lives, they have been explicitly encouraged not to ask. Several students made the kind of point expressed here by Eileen: In my generation, the idea was, well my brothers all went on to the post office and then to the government jobs, that was the thing in those days. But the girls just left school and they were expected to pick up the boys’ clothes and clean the house and stay home and get married and have children. That pattern was laid out for you. You never dreamt of being educated and going out teaching or anything. (Eileen) With this kind of background, it certainly is no surprise that university practices associated with subject content, organisation, assessment appear so natural and permanent. The data described above encourage attention to three crucial points. First, it is possible to suggest that OLA and similar initiatives respond to the needs of a particular version of Woman: Woman as the homogenous category student, satisfied with the opportunity to access tertiary study and uninterested in critiquing the system.

A feminist exploration 165 Second, the extent to which OLA (or any university programme for that matter) is able or willing to respond to the differences between women and, even more challenging, the differences within women themselves, is much less clear. Third, and most importantly, those engaged in the construction and/or evaluation of initiatives such as OLA, or responsible for the delivery of training opportunities to particular workforces, do not necessarily have access to the kinds of theoretical resources that would support a consideration of these differences within, among and between women. In other words, there is a distinct lack of the kinds of analytical tools or frameworks which would support educators, trainers or human resource managers as they seek to move towards the flexible and skilled workforce which appears to be so desirable. As a feminist committed to the production of positive cultural change, I take this absence very seriously. What I am interested in exploring in the remainder of this chapter, then, are the possibilities provided by the work of feminist Rosi Braidotti, specifically in terms of how her theoretical perspective on subjectivity encourages critique of the category Woman and attention to the multiplicities of women. In exploring Braidotti’s framework, I am interested in identifying the ways in which it encourages attention to the kinds of issues which are routinely denied, or forgotten, within traditional measures of ‘openness’. Similarly, the possibilities this framework has for assisting the routinely accepted denaturalisation of practices – within workplace and training contexts – are exciting.

Attending to difference: the writings of Rosi Braidotti With an interest in developing and circulating multiple images of women as part of the feminist project of deconstructing the essentialising category of Woman, Braidotti2 (1994) draws on Deleuze and Guattari’s theory of rhizomatics to highlight, among other things, two points that are of interest to me in this chapter. First, patriarchal/phallocentric systems of thought and representation (such as those celebrated in university systems) produce and reproduce the category of Woman: a restrictive identity distinguished from the equally fixed category of Man through a series of binaries with which we are all familiar: active/passive; culture/nature; intellect/emotion and so on. Second, this binaristic model can be challenged by a theoretical approach to identity that rests, not on binaristic oppositions, but upon a multiplicity of subjectivities: where subjectivity is understood as non-unitary, as fragmented and open to change.

166 Leonie Rowan Braidotti encourages explorations of the way we can move beyond the homogeneous and limiting category of Woman towards a postWoman model of women. She draws attention to multiplicity and movement: when considering the extent to which any educational initiative meets the needs of ‘women’, her framework challenges us to attend to the multiple, contingent, transitory nature of women and to recognise that Woman is not, indeed, a fixed, static or unitary category. If students are what she describes as nomadic subjects, constantly in the process of defining themselves, then educational programmes face the challenge of educating these nomads: of responding to multiplicity, difference, contradiction. Braidotti offers a framework for understanding women that highlights, not the seeming sameness of women but, rather, three levels or dimensions of difference; attention to each of these levels works to minimise the possibility that efforts at educational reform do not produce/reproduce the fixed, essential category of Woman and the educational strategies that are ‘suited’ to that category. At each level, educators are faced with specific challenges and, as part of a commitment to highlighting new ways in which we can think about the challenges facing those of us working in open and distance education, it is useful to explore each of these levels in more detail. Level one: differences between women and men Recognising the differences between women and men is a key feature of Braidotti’s framework. This is not an essentialist argument as it does not rest upon defining women solely in terms defined by the body but it recognises that a woman’s body is experienced differently to a man’s body and that these bodies are given different meanings in Western culture. Braidotti writes: The starting point for the project of sexual difference – level one – remains the political will to assert the specificity of lived, female bodily experience … and the will to reconnect the whole debate on difference to the bodily existence and experience of women. (Braidotti 1994: 160) At this level, Braidotti provides a way of speaking about the differences between the sexes not in essentialising/phallocentric terms as deviations or devaluations of women, but in a way which recognises that experience is always embodied: that is, the experiences a woman

A feminist exploration 167 has in a workplace or educational context can and must be read as tied to her body. There is no such thing as a gender neutral worker and discussions of sexual harassment in the workplace make this painfully clear (Fitzgerald and Shullman 1993 cited in Cleveland 1994). For those involved in education, attention has often been paid to this first level of difference: there is a generally widespread recognition that women and men have been differently constituted as subjects and that this constitution has impacted upon women’s educational opportunities. With its policies of open admission, flexibility and transferability, OLA responds to this level of difference. As Sharon says: I teach Sunday School and a whole heap of community things like that. I’m very involved with the children and I needed to be still able to do that. Also, I have a child who has a learning difficulty, attention deficit disorder, so I needed to be there for him, to help him with his schooling. So, this particular year, going on campus wasn’t a good idea. We looked at all the options, and doing it this way externally at the time that suits me, which happens to be 11.00 at night till 3.00 in the morning, seemed best. So it just happened that Open Learning worked well. (Sharon) Sharon makes very clear the material conditions within which many women are located. However, there is a common tendency for identification of this first level of difference (discussed earlier in the chapter as a rationale for linking women rather unproblematically to open or distance education) to inform the construction of homogenous and essentialising notions of woman. Equal attention to the second level of difference is therefore essential. Level two: the differences among women The second level of Braidotti’s political agenda is based on acknowledging the differences among women. This level is about recognising the way Woman has been produced as a monolithic and homogenous category which sees all women occupying what Jones describes as the same gender territory – even though this is clearly not the case (Jones 1990). This is a strategy that university programmes have engaged with at only the most basic of levels. While individual lecturers and individual units – most commonly those with an overtly feminist basis – work to identify and celebrate the multiplicities of women

168 Leonie Rowan through attention to issues of race, class, sexuality, physical ability and other factors, such differences are rarely evidenced within institutions that are generally content to celebrate their ‘one-size-fits-all’ reform projects which generously work to ‘accommodate’ the convenient singularity of Woman. Of course, it does not take very much effort at all to recognise how diverse women actually are. Three quotations regarding the different reasons women study make this very clear: I’m 48 and of course at the time I grew up, particularly in my household, it wasn’t considered that women should have an education. I did very, very well at school but my family insisted I leave. … I was very unhappy about that and I wanted to go to university, but you didn’t question your parents in those days, so I just did it. … This is my relaxation, my goal, my dream. (Margaret) My initial idea was to do my Open Learning units to credit as many as I could towards a degree in psychology. I knew right from the start I wasn’t going to be able to continue psychology through Open Learning, so my whole focus has been on gaining a second-year place at university for next year. (Sharon) Yeh, I wanted to go to university because I discovered that if you have a degree they’re less inclined to call you a whacko. Whereas if you’ve got undeveloped ideas beforehand, they don’t want to know. Even if you’re a genius, you have to get the degree. Basically that’s how I see it. (Michelle) Despite the ease with which one can demonstrate profound differences among women, these differences are often denied when educators or trainers seek to produce a programme of study which ‘meets the needs’ of the learners. Too often, it meets the needs of one type of learner and asks the others to fit in with the dominant model. This is precisely the kind of the process which has helped to construct women as other to masculine norms. There is therefore a real risk that programmes which seek to respond to women’s marginality can participate in the ongoing construction of this otherness. All women are not the same and we need to be overt and politically conscious in our acknowledgment of this point. Once this

A feminist exploration 169 argument is accepted, ‘closed’ models of student evaluation within which all students must ‘fit in’ with the same type and timing of assessment are quickly read as problematic particularly within any system staking claims to ‘openness’. Level three: differences within women While levels one and two of Braidotti’s theory of difference pose significant challenges for educators and their conception of ‘openness’ the third level is the most challenging of all. At this third level Braidotti works to highlight the differences within each woman. Here, she uses the rhizomatic model of embodied subjectivity to view difference as internal to the subject where our desires cause a multiplicity within ourselves. Subjectivity does not correspond to consciousness. Instead, our multiplicity is characterised by both conscious and unconscious desires. According to Braidotti: ‘what feminism liberates in women is also their desire for freedom, lightness, justice, and self-accomplishment’ (1994: 167). But this desire may always be interrupted by an awareness of dominant social discourses: thus women are often torn between a desire for something else and a desire to appreciate and ‘make do’ with what already is. To provide an example, in the following quotation, Norma struggles to identify the ways in which (and the reasons why) she doubts her own ability. Norma has a degree in physics but was reluctant to study computers because of an apparent lack of ability: I decided I wouldn’t cope with computer studies. … I knew that computer work had changed dramatically since … [I was involved] I thought it just might be a bit too hard for me to pick up. … While I was a [computer] user and very familiar with certain software and did quite a good job of supporting people using the software, I knew there was a whole lot of the other side of computer science that I knew nothing about. I thought I’d like to, but didn’t think I’d perhaps manage to work through it at that time. (Norma) Similar struggles are found throughout the transcripts. Cassie says that her husband has been a great encouragement to her and that ‘every time I learn something I have to tell my husband about it’. However, when she speaks of her reactions to a unit focused on

170 Leonie Rowan women’s experiences, she says ‘I got so angry that I couldn’t talk to my husband after I’d done some of it. I didn’t imagine it would encompass so much.’ And when asked for her husband’s reactions to her study, she replied ‘I don’t think he minded just as long as I didn’t talk about it too much.’ Once again, the struggle within women to reconcile multiple pressures comes through in these extracts. The point for me is this: it is only by being aware that women constantly negotiate the multiplicity of their own desires that we can confront the fact that they will not always be able to or interested in critiquing the system that has provided them with an opportunity they would otherwise not have had. Nor will they always be accommodated within or satisfied by systems which still perceive them as other to some phallocentric educational norm. Attention to the three levels of difference outlined by Braidotti makes it impossible for educators to be content with traditional modes of evaluating the ‘openness’ or ‘inclusivity’ of educational programmes and asks that we assess our practices, no longer on our own terms, but with other, less convenient, less obliging criteria. An awareness of the multiplicity of women informs the political belief that female feminists are participating in the process of becoming post-Woman women. If we are serious about responding to the needs of women, we must therefore ask ourselves how we work to denaturalise narrow and reductive images of Woman (be they linked to a notion of woman worker, woman student or, most difficult to deconstruct of all, woman as human resource) and circulate and celebrate the multiplicity of women.

Conclusion In conclusion, when such a framework is adopted, educators, trainers and employers alike are challenged to stop looking at how many women are employed (or in leadership roles, or studying in particular fields or disciplines, or undertaking training programmes and so on) and where and when they are studying. It may be better to turn their attention to what and how they are able to study and the diverse ways in which they are restricted and encouraged to adhere to normative definitions of Woman when taking up educational or employment opportunities. In seeking to construct ‘open’ or ‘inclusive’ employment experiences, we are all challenged to attend to much more than the official barriers that have historically limited women’s participation in the labour market. It involves much, much

A feminist exploration 171 more than the gracious bestowal of educational and employment gifts on a disadvantaged and, therefore, eternally grateful Woman. Pursuing the kinds of questions which theorists such as Braidotti encourage helps to provide those of us working in open or distance education with an agenda for critically analysing the programmes we develop. It supports us as we determine the extent to which our initiatives are open and, in Braidotti’s terms, the levels of difference which they are able to accommodate. Whilst it remains important to celebrate achievements that relate to the first or second levels of difference, the major goal relates to our ability to provide programmes of study which are open, not just to women, but to the full diversity of women and which are also able to recognise that any individual woman’s educational needs will vary from one context to another. It is this commitment to constantly assessing the degrees of difference to which we are responding that will allow us to progress towards truly human, human resource management and meaningfully flexible, flexible learning. Notes 1

2

The data reported in this chapter was collected as part of a University Research Grant at Central Queensland University awarded to V.L. Bartlett and L.O. Rowan. I am extremely grateful to Anne Musso for her work as senior research assistant on the project and for transcription and initial analysis of that material. An extremely insightful exploration and extension of Braidotti’s articulation with Deleuze and Guattari’s theory of rhizomatics is provided in the work of Elizabeth Hills. See, for example, Hills (1998a, 1998b). I am grateful to Liz for her contribution to my understanding of this framework.

References Atkinson, E. et al. (1995) Evaluation of the Open Learning Initiative: Interim Report, Parkville: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) ‘Australia in brief: schools student teaching staff, ABS Statsite, 1999, 6 January 1999. Baudrillard, J. (1983) Simulations, New York: Semiotext(e). Bosworth, D. (1991) Open Learning: Issues in Higher Education, London: Cassell Educational. Braidotti, R. (1994) Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory, New York: Columbia University Press. Burge, E. and Lenskyj, H. (1990) ‘Women studying in distance education: issues and principles’, Journal of Distance Education, 5, 1: 20–37.

172 Leonie Rowan Carnoy, M., Castells, M., Cohen, S.S. and Cardoso, F.H. (1993) The New Global Economy in the Information Age, University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. Cass, B. (1995) ‘Gender in Australia’s restructuring labour market and welfare state’, in A. Edwards and S. Margary (eds) Women in a Restructuring Australia: Work and Welfare, St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin. Cleveland, J.N. (1994) ‘Women and sexual harassment: work and well-being in US organizations’, in M.J. Davidson and R.J. Burke (eds) Women in Management: Current Research Issues, London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Coulter, R. (1989) ‘Women in distance education: towards a feminist perspective’, in R.A. Sweet (ed.) Post-Secondary Distance Education in Canada: Policies, Practices and Priorities, Athabasca, Alberta: Athabasca University and Canadian Society for Studies in Education. Davidson, M.J. and Burke, R.J. (eds) (1994) Women in Management: Current Research Issues, London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Edvinnson, L. and Malone, M. (1997) Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Roots, New York: Harper Collins. Emy, H. (1993) Remaking Australia: The State, the Market and Australia’s Future, St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin. Evans, T. and King, B. (1991) The Text: Contemporary Writing on Distance Education, Geelong: Deakin University Press. Faith, K. and Coulter, R. P. (1988) ‘Home study: keeping women in their place?’, in D. Seward and J.S. Daniel (eds) Developing Distance Education, Oslo: International Council for Distance Education. Garrick, J. (1998) ‘Informal learning in corporate workplaces’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 2: 129–144. Grace, M. (1994) ‘Meanings and motivations: women’s experiences of studying at a distance’, Open Learning, 9, 1: 13–21. Grosz, E. (1990) ‘Contemporary theories of power and subjectivity’, in S. Gunew (ed.) Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct, London: Routledge. Hills, E. (1998a) ‘The Ripley Effect: action heroines and the transformation of feminist film theory’, in L.O. Rowan and M.T. Brennan (eds) Cultural Transformations, Rockhampton: Central Queensland University Press. —— (1998b) ‘Hollywood’s new action heroines as feminist figurations’, Ph.D Thesis, Faculty of Education and Creative Arts, Rockhampton, Central Queensland University. hooks, b. (1990) ‘Marginality as site of resistance’, in R. Ferguson, M. Gever, T. Minh-ha Trinh and C. West (eds) Out There: Marginalisation and Contemporary Culture, New York: The New Museum of Contemporary Art. Johnson, R. (1990) Open Learning: Policy and Practice, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

A feminist exploration 173 Jones, K. (1990) ‘Citizenship in a woman-friendly polity’, Signs, 15, 4: 75–88. Keepes, B., Sinclair, K., Ball, S., Harman, K. and Kearnes, J. (1993) Evaluation of the First Year of the TV Open Learning Project March 1992 to February 1993, Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training. Kenway, J. (1998) ‘Local/global labour markets and the restructuring of gender, schooling and work’, paper presented at Rockhampton, Central Queensland University. King, B. (1991) ‘Introduction to Part 2’, in T. Evans and B. King (eds) Beyond the Text: Contemporary Writing on Distance Education, Geelong: Deakin University Press. Latchem, C. and Pritchard, T. (1994) ‘Open learning: the unique Australian option’, Open Learning, 9, 3: 18–26. Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never been Modern, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Logan, L. and Dempster, N. (eds) (1992) Teachers in Australian Schools: Issues for the 1990s, Canberra: Australian College of Education. Lupton, G., Short, P. and Whip, R. (eds) (1992) Society and Gender: An Introduction to Sociology, Melbourne: Macmillan. Milligan, S., Ashenden, D. and Quin, R. (1994) Women in the Teaching Profession. The National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Moodie, G. (1993) ‘Speculations on the implications of “Open Learning” for Australian “distance education” futures’, in T. Nunan (eds) Distance Education Futures, Adelaide: University of South Australia. Pettman, J.J. (1993) ‘Gender and international politics’, Australian Feminist Studies, 17: 181–197. —— (1996) Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics, St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin. Probert, B. (1999) ‘Gender workers and gendered workplaces: implications for women’s learning’, in D. Boud and J. Garrick (eds) Understanding Learning at Work, London: Routledge. Rowan, L. (1997) ‘The importance of the act of going: towards gender inclusive education’, Continuing Education, 19, 2: 124–142. ——, Bartlett, V.L. and Danaher, P.A. (1994) ‘Access versus equity: an analysis of women’s participation in Australia’s TV Open Learning Project’, in Open Learning 94 Conference Proceedings, Brisbane: Queensland Open Learning Network and University of Queensland. Rumble, G. (1989) ‘ “Open learning”, “distance learning” and the misuse of language’, Open Learning, 4, 2: 28–36. Sassen, S. (1998) Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money, New York: The New Press. Spivak, G.C. (1990) ‘Explanation and culture: marginalia’, in R. Ferguson, M. Gever, T. Minh-ha Trinh and C. West (eds) Out There: Marginaliza-

174 Leonie Rowan tion and Contemporary Cultures, New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art. Sullivan, B. and Whitehouse, G. (1996) Gender, Politics and Citizenship in the 1990s, Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Townsend, K. and McLennan, W. (1995) Australian Women’s Year Book, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Walker, R. and McIlroy, A. (1994) ‘Reflections on open learning and distance education’, in T.C. School (ed.) Distance Education: Windows on the Future, Wellington: The Correspondence School. Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V. (1993) Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change, San Francisco: JosseyBass. Women’s Policy Unit (1995) A Social and Economic Profile of Women in Queensland, Brisbane: Queensland Government. Yeatman, A. (1994) ‘Women and the State’, in K.P. Hughes (ed.) Contemporary Australian Feminism, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

10 Pedagogical implications of flexible learning Mary Thorpe

Flexible learning has been used as an inclusive term over the last twenty years or so to cover innovative approaches to teaching and learning which offer the learner some form of control over the learning process (Ellington 1997). Such approaches are typically justified in terms of improvements to the quality of learning, enabling access to previously excluded groups or in terms of a curriculum better suited to the achievement of learning outcomes associated with employment and lifelong learning (Bell et al. 1997). They may draw on several concepts for their justification. The pedagogies associated with flexible learning are justified by their advocates as more effective ways to bring about learning. I will analyse the basis of this claim in relation to two of the most well known – student-centred learning and experiential learning. Both these approaches have developed in response to critiques of conventional provision and identification of better ways of proceeding in order to foster learning in vocational and institutional settings.

Student-centred teaching and learning Student-centred teaching and learning is commonly presented as a form in opposition to tutor-centred, where all aspects of the teaching and learning interaction are under the control of the tutor. By contrast, student-centred learning incorporates negotiation by the learner of how learning proceeds and perhaps also the content of what is to be learned. The emphasis is on learning as the dominant activity, not teaching. The assumption on which these features are based is that learner control of the learning process and focus upon what the learner already knows and can do are crucial to high quality learning. Two themes have played the major role in justifications for studentcentred approaches. The first is that teacher-dominated education

176 Mary Thorpe engenders superficial and ineffective learning. Relationships of power shape perception and response, and those approaches which are teacher or tutor led, engender passivity. The second is that teacher-led approaches do not foster ability to learn beyond the classroom – a key requirement in societies where knowledge and knowledge management are important for both individual and social effectiveness. Where the learners are adults, it is also argued that decision-taking on their behalf by a tutor is entirely inappropriate given the self-determining status of adults (Davenport 1993). Practices which focus attention on learning Student-centred learning has been promoted as a better way because it tackles several of the difficulties identified. First, it gives the individual student a significant role in decision-making and control of their own learning (Laurillard 1988). In so far as students are able to decide what they might learn and in what way, they are in control of a process where they must formulate personal goals and use these to direct a programme of study. They learn that their own interventions can make a material difference to the success or failure of the process. They are better able to draw on the problem-solving approach to learning which many adults are capable of, outside the context of institutional provision (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1989). They are engaging overtly in intentional learning, not merely in achieving the tasks as set by their lecturers. Student-centred teaching also sets out to start from where the learner is at rather than from the dictates of a prescribed curriculum. This draws on the cognitivists’ emphasis on the importance of what is already known in shaping both what and how effectively the learner can learn in future (Ausubel et al. 1978). Knowledge is actively constructed by the learner using existing concepts and perceptions which are likely to be changed, sometimes transformed, by the new learning. A student-centred pedagogy draws attention to this by engaging the learner in a review of what they already know, encouraging them to make sense of new learning through reviewing the ‘fit’ or lack of it with their existing knowledge structures. More recently, social constructivist approaches have highlighted the degree to which knowledge is the outcome of a process of learning through social interaction and the subjective interpretation of each person’s experience. Thus approaches are being promoted which engage learners in group activities and have them ‘acting out’

Pedagogical implications 177 or using directly the skills which are the goal, rather than learning about them as abstractions for later application. The potential for social interaction has been one of the single most important perceived benefits of information and communication technologies (ICT) for flexible learning, where groups of learners, with or without their teachers, can interact and carry out tasks collaboratively (Mason 1994). This is certainly an enormous bonus for distance learning, where ICT now enables extended social contact where previously distance and practicality ruled it out. But even in workplaces and campus-based institutions, shared collaborative activity is being used to foster knowledge sharing and skills learning. Collis (1998) for example has pioneered imaginative applications of self-evaluation through use of ICT for small group learning.

Experiential learning and facilitation Experiential learning draws on some of the same theoretical work and critiques of institutionalised learning as student-centred learning. Boud has commented for example that most forms of experiential learning ‘pursue some notion of freedom and autonomy for the learner’ (Boud 1989: 43). Degree of learner control is one of three key dimensions of experiential learning, along with degree of involvement of self and the correspondence between the learning environment and the real environment (Boud 1989: 39). Student centredness is thus a crucial concern within experiential learning but sits alongside additional concerns to do with the social and personal goals of learning. Warner Weil and McGill have categorised the diversity of experiential approaches into four ‘villages’: assessment and accreditation of ‘prior’ experiential learning, experiential learning and change in higher and continuing education, experiential learning and social change, and personal growth and development. These different uses of experiential learning carry very different social meanings. The accreditation activities tend to apply institutional language and forms to the learning that is ‘extracted’ from individual experience. By contrast, approaches focused on social and personal change challenge accepted knowledge boundaries and the hierarchical norms of institutionalised teaching and learning (Warner Weil and McGill 1989). Accounts such as these have provided evidence about how adult work and social roles create distinctive modes of learning and have fed widespread interest in creating experiential forms of learning. Schon’s book The Reflective Practitioner, addressed similar issues in the

178 Mary Thorpe context of professional practice – specifically of how professionals learn how to practise and to develop their expertise (Schön 1983). Schön’s text mounts a persuasive critique of the dominant paradigm of the technical-rationalist approach, which assumes that practice is the unproblematic application of bodies of knowledge, learned in advance of the moment of practice. Schön’s claim that the model was flawed on all counts came at a time when postmodernist theory also called into question the claims to objectivity of disciplinary knowledge. The influence of the individual practitioner’s reflection on their own direct experience thus fitted with a view of knowledge as the subjective interpretation of experience, as emphasised by the social constructivist approach to learning (Newby et al. 1996). For these reasons, as well as the evidence adduced about how practitioners actually do frame and resolve the problems of daily practice, Schön’s book was a ‘defining moment’ for all those whose courses were directly linked with professional formation or postexperience development. The mode through which practitioners became truly professional was through the reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action which Schön asserted and described. Barnett has commented that the growth of professional education is ‘perhaps the most significant feature of the development of higher education in the UK over the past thirty years and generally across the western world’ (Barnett 1992: 185). Barnett indeed has argued that the reflective practitioner approach has applicability to all students, however theoretical their field of study. Where courses are oriented to professional education, most lay claim to using a ‘reflective practitioner’ approach. By this is usually meant that the learner will be required to engage in reflective activities which require application of study outcomes to the learner’s own professional experience. Assessment will typically involve the completion of portfolios in which reflective statements by the learner will be required. Alternatively, discursive accounts by the learner may form the basis for assessment where, again, application to their own work experience is the focus for efforts to integrate theory and practice, through reflection on the meanings of personal experience gained during practice (Loughran 1996). Reflection and a cyclical model of learning Schön’s 1983 book was published only one year prior to another text which has had perhaps an even more far-reaching effect in stimulating

Pedagogical implications 179 experiential learning, Kolb’s Experiential Learning (1984). Since both were about how experience generates learning, they have been mutually reinforcing in legitimating experiential approaches and reflection as the primary means through which the learning ‘embedded’ in experience can be made explicit and appropriated. Kolb however aspired to a more universal theory of learning. He claims that whatever is being learned, all four stages of the learning cycle must be gone through for the learning to be fully integrated within the person’s structure of knowledge and values. Kolb’s original cyclical model of learning (concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation) has been reproduced many times, more often than not with simplified or sometimes quite different terms to mark each of the four stages. Race, for example, adapts it to cover four stages in learning which he titles ‘wanting, doing, feedback and digesting’ (Race 1993). One of the reasons why Kolb’s model has been popularised and become so well known is probably because it has elicited widespread recognition that there are distinctive forms of learning – that learning is experienced as a rather different process when, for example, one is engaged in the concrete experience of a role play rather than in the quiet and isolated activity of reading a book. Kolb’s view of the deleterious effects for learners of failing to develop all four modes of learning has been influential. He asserts that individuals develop preferences over time for one or more of the key forms of knowledge and ways of learning, such that as adults they frequently undervalue and underuse those modes of learning which are not preferred. He singled out reflection as a mode not fostered by institutionalised learning and essential for those who in adulthood have much personal experience from which to learn. He suggested that individuals could improve their learning by identifying their ‘natural’ preferences and thus which learning modes they underuse. These weaker processes should be strengthened and used more often. In this way the learner will build up a more integrated form of knowledge, where the learning process has been progressed through all four of the forms of knowing and learning. Thus Kolb has come through a different route to question the traditional forms of learning in institutionalised provision and to advocate a more holistic approach through integration of the experience each learner brings to the learning process.

180 Mary Thorpe Applications of experiential learning Both Kolb and Schön’s work have led to a new appreciation of the role of reflection in learning and to attempts to foster reflection as one of the outcomes of assessed programmes of study. The work of Boud and others in modelling how reflection can be facilitated through a three-staged approach has also stimulated practitioner interest in practical applications (Boud et al. 1985). This model draws attention to the role of feelings in blocking critical reflection on negative experience and suggests the need to recognise the powerful role emotions play in using reflection effectively for learning. Key practices here have been accreditation of learning occurring in work settings (paid or unpaid), the growth of continuing education for professionals, where learners draw on their own professional experience for both content and assessment, work experience interspersed with study, and forms of assessment using portfolio completion, requiring extensive self-evaluation and reflection on experience by the learner. Practices such as these are now widespread, many of them falling within the definition of ‘work-based learning’. Seagraves et al. have distinguished between three types: learning for work, learning at work and learning through work (Seagraves et al. 1996 quoted in Brennan and Little 1996). Learning for work includes all learning with a vocational goal, and it has been estimated that over half of all undergraduate work is broadly of this type, related to professional and vocational studies (Brennan and Little 1996). Learning at work refers to in-company training and study. Learning through work encompasses many of the practices referred to above, in that institutional study is structured around work roles and experience, so as to maximise the learning value of work, extended through academic study. It includes the application by learners of study outcomes to the work context and the identification by learners of the skills and knowledge acquired in the process of work for integration into assessed programmes.

Progressive and problematic: dilemmas of the new pedagogies We have now reviewed a number of pedagogies which claim to represent better or more progressive approaches to learning. They are the pedagogies which reappear in one guise or another in the accounts by

Pedagogical implications 181 practitioners of flexible learning approaches. Can we conclude now therefore that pedagogy is ‘on the right road’? Have we recognised the bad old ways of authoritarian instruction and achieved something which is entirely progressive? The questions themselves tend to suggest that the answers are unlikely to be comfortingly positive. In this section we review some of the concerns which have arisen in the debates around the practice of flexible approaches and identify problem areas which require further attention by both practitioners and researchers. Rhetoric versus reality in pedagogy applied This is not the place to attempt an empirical survey of pedagogies in use. It is appropriate however to reflect on the evidence of published collections of practice and of commentaries on the effects of flexible practice. First, many accounts contain little if any evaluation of the practice implemented. We cannot judge whether the assertion of a particular kind of learning can be substantiated – there is just too little evidence to judge. Innovation in teaching and learning is usually acclaimed as an instance of the reflective practitioner model, or open learning or flexible learning. Such accounts often include references to reflective journals or assessment by portfolio, self-study materials, computermediated communication or modular provision. Whatever the details of the practice which is being described, there is often too little detail to be able to judge whether the content as well as the form of a progressive pedagogy has been realised. At one level, this is a product of the bandwagon effect, discussed by King in Chapter Seven, which occurs once innovatory practice and thinking has become known and acclaimed. Practice which is seen as the way ahead is popularised and the surface features seized upon for replication. In particular, practice which challenges routine and convention in mainstream practice cannot itself become part of that mainstream provision without losing at best its edge of challenge or, at worst, all its original meaning and force as a counter-experience to the dominant culture. Some of the early innovators in access to learning courses for adults felt that this occurred when ‘Access Courses’ became a recognised mode of entry to higher education (Williams 1997). Fraser (1995) also makes a similar argument in relation to the accreditation of experiential learning. She provides an account of a project led by the Workers Educational Association in the UK which implemented varieties of forms of accreditation of experiential

182 Mary Thorpe learning in the early–mid 1990s. The experience she analyses portrays forcefully both the contradictions inherent in the theories about reflection and experience, and the dilemmas which are generated by attempting to use personal experience for publicly accredited learning. Experience is not a ‘coherent site for excavation’ for learning outcomes. Individuals do not have equal opportunity when it comes to the experiences that they can have – their lives are shaped by social position, gender, race and educational opportunity. We cannot assume a unified consciousness is ‘in place’ and ready to subject the confusions and sometimes pain of replaying experience in order to create an ordered set of outcomes. Fraser’s conclusion is that ‘most of the work undertaken in the field of Making Experience Count/Accredited Experiential Learning is conservative and reductionist, and serves to maintain the status quo’ (Fraser 1995: 40). Her judgement arises from observation that the processes used in order to ensure that learning outcomes can be publicly accredited more often than not drive out ‘real learning’ about the meaning of our experiences, the way they have shaped our identity and the self or selves that we feel we have been. Accreditation of prior experiential learning reveals starkly the tension between the public and private outcomes of the experiential learning process. This point can be illustrated in relation to women’s experience in accrediting their unpaid work roles. As Butler has argued, domestic experience offers women the opportunity to claim skills of organisation and management that can count towards National Vocational Qualifications and thus lay claim to being transferable skills (Butler 1993). However, Fraser asserts the domestic or private realm for many of the women making such claims is: often the source of sustained pain and conflict in terms of ‘who women are’. In other words, if we base the Making Experience Count/Accredited Prior Experiential Learning process upon some form of andragogic – or self-directed – journey, then there is every likelihood of eliciting a wide range of transferable skills. However, this is not the same as facilitating a learning process, if we are to regard learning as a dynamic intervention involving analysis of the factors which combine to generate our understanding of who, and why, we are. (Fraser 1995: 33)

Pedagogical implications 183 This echoes to some extent critiques of practitioner uses of reflection in contexts which ‘are not conducive to the questioning of experience – that is situations which do not allow learners to explore a state of perplexity, hesitation, doubt’ (Dewey 1933 cited in Boud and Walker 1998: 192). The concerns Boud and Walker explore relate to practitioners who lay claim to using reflective approaches in their practice but devalue or ignore the disturbing and unpredictable nature of reflection properly understood. Fraser similarly recognises the impact of reflection as a process which might generate pain as well as help the person to learn from painful experience in the past. It is not just a vehicle for assessing the transferable but a cause of pain through calling into being ‘the deeper complexities in the formation of experience’ (Fraser 1995: 33). Boud and Walker’s concern is that the use of teaching strategies which incorporate reflection by students has increased dramatically, but that there is evidence of misconceptions about what reflection is. They refer to the use of checklists to prompt reflective activities and the failure to appreciate the unpredictable and dangerous outcomes that can arise from encouraging reflection without boundary setting. Students may reveal information of a private nature which is damaging to them, or potentially so, and may put the practitioner in difficult moral dilemmas for which few are prepared adequately to cope. Their castigation of such practice is that it is also a risk for learners who make themselves vulnerable through personal reflection to the misuse of power in educational institutions. They also draw attention to the powerful influence of context on the quality of the reflection that is the outcome. Reflective teaching strategies are only desirable if they prompt genuine personal involvement by the student and focus on the learning process but without the use of checklist prompts which encourage routine responses rather than self-questioning. As Boud and Walker assert, the answer is not to avoid structure or boundaries at all: Without some direction reflection can become diffuse and disparate so that conclusions or outcomes may not emerge. Without a focus on conceptual frameworks, learning outcomes and implications, reflection for learners can become self-referential, inward looking and uncritical. (Boud and Walker 1998: 193)

184 Mary Thorpe The ‘right way’ lies with driving subtly between two extremes, neither of which is desirable – an approach which it is admitted is not easy either to describe or to implement. These comments highlight the nature of the difficulty in moving from theories about how best to promote learning to practical pedagogy. Laurillard explores this in terms of the dynamic interrelationship of teaching and learning, which means that we can never confidently assume that what we learn from an empirical study of learning is transferable to a new teaching situation. When we study learning, we must study it as a particular example, where the content and the context shape the nature of the learning process and outcome. What we learn about the effects of a teaching strategy in one context cannot be relied upon to deliver the same results in a new context. Her judgement on reading of the implications for teaching from empirical studies of learning, is that: although this can be a respectable analytical process – going from what we know about student learning to what this means for teaching – it is not a logical one. It is clearly important to base a teaching strategy on an understanding of learning, but the relationship is fuzzy. The character of student learning is elusive, dependent on former experiences of the world and of education, and on the nature of the current teaching situation. (Laurillard 1993: 70) Accordingly, when we read the many examples of flexible approaches that have appeared in edited collections and articles over the last decade (e.g. Hudson et al. 1997; Brown 1997), we might ask ourselves whether the teaching strategies they document have actually achieved the kinds of learning they were intended to achieve. Laurillard asserts that it is not enough to do the right thing: from the teacher’s perspective, the learners also need to know why what is being done is being done, and what it is meant to achieve: As a mathemagenic activity, reflecting on action in a learning task in relation to its goal is known to be important from the work on deep and surface approaches … the teacher has some additional work to do, not just in setting the goal, but in helping to form students’ perceptions of what is required and what is important in the task set, as well as encouraging students to do the reflecting. (Laurillard 1993: 68)

Pedagogical implications 185 Thus we have noted here a certain scepticism about the claims practitioners make about the pedagogy they practise. The scepticism may be justified, if there is not much more than the claim being made and very little evidence of the content of innovative practice and its effects empirically. The pedagogies in use may be devalued or oversimplified versions of the pedagogies espoused, and some feel they have evidence of misapplications of the theoretical concepts. Academic authority and the issue of standards The recognition that experience is a rich and legitimate resource for learning has been the basis for arguments in favour of accrediting the learning generated by work experience and social roles (Fraser 1995). Many universities will now give a credit rating to prior experiential learning, though such credits do not often account for a major proportion of qualifications of the significance of a first degree. However the expansion of credit accumulation schemes, and the pressure to make higher education serve the needs of workplaces, raises issues about the independence and authority of universities. The issues arise particularly where academic qualifications are to be awarded to learning which has not been generated solely by academic study or by discipline-based research. Academics may need to negotiate with or to cede authority to those in authority in the workplace when judging the outcomes of such learning. At its best this will be achieved through discussion and agreement, but the conflict between the values and purposes of the two authorities often creates tensions to which there is no easy solution (Brennan et al. 1996; Brennan and Little 1996). Universities have in the past claimed – and been accorded – autonomy in deciding what shall count as knowledge and the value it should be awarded in terms of accreditation. Professional organisations have in some cases specified the content of awards which shall merit their recognition, but these have often closely related to existing discipline-based curricula in any case. In the current climate of economic rationalisation for higher education, universities are coming under greater pressure to ‘prove’ the impact of their teaching and research in terms of effectiveness for employment. It becomes important therefore to distinguish between competence in the workplace on one hand, and academic skills and knowledge on the other. The risk is that academic skills and knowledge become seen as merely the underpinning for workplace competence. If such a view gains credence, the risk exists that academic skills and knowledge may be thought expendable, or

186 Mary Thorpe reducible to some narrow core, justified on the basis of their applicability to employment rather than their intrinsic value. One of the unwanted side effects of the move to explicit statements of outcomes of course study has been the devaluing of the process as opposed to the outcomes of learning. Students and sponsors of course have a right to be able to know and to understand what they can expect at the end of the process. But such clarity has also gone along with expressions that it is outcomes that matter and not process. That can insidiously undermine the value given to high quality inputs to learning, and the intrinsic values for students of the process of study and learning. In a study of the effectiveness of university continuing education, McPherson et al. (1994) pinpoint such a difficulty for students involved in study alongside career and adult role development. They note the lack of explicit discussion of the roles to be played by teacher and taught, and the consequent lack of impact mature learners had on the quality of their learning. The emphasis on outcomes was no substitute for an effective teaching and learning process, and even ‘reflective practitioner’ models did not go far enough in fostering the self-awareness and involvement of the students themselves: from student perspectives, the development of effectiveness of continuing education is based at least as much on students’ ability to make good quality judgements about their learning needs and preferred style of learning, and their ability to communicate these to tutors and others, as on tutors’ abilities to reflect on their practice. (McPherson et al. 1994: 121) Always in the interests of learners and effective learning? When we turn to the issue of the effects for students of the pedagogies reviewed here, we need to recognise that they are at least as difficult to implement well as the tutor-dominated and institutiondominated practices they challenge. Student-centred learning when not well implemented does not create positive experiences for learners and is likely to be damaging for effective learning. It may be unrealistic to expect mature learners to adjust overnight to greater responsibility for their own learning. Such changes require adjustments of expectations and behaviour, and mature returners are unlikely to achieve a change in attitudes to the learning process overnight. Their need is for ‘scaffolding’ which provides interim

Pedagogical implications 187 intellectual supports and strong emotional relationships during the early stages of learning (Northedge 1994). The content of learning is also a relevant consideration in deciding what is possible in the way of handing back to students authority for setting objectives and deciding what to study. Disciplinary knowledge requires that individual subjectivities are brought up against recognised ways of operating and discursive practices promoted within the discipline. What the novice student is learning is both new ways of speaking and writing as key practices which induct them into the conceptual understandings and structures of the discipline. They are in this sense not free to develop their own subjective meanings without critique or correction from those in authority in the discipline. As Lea and Street (1998) have documented, the modular study now widespread in higher education requires students to demonstrate a potentially bewildering range of academic literacies. Where modules are based on cross or interdisciplinary study, the sophistication required of the student may be even greater. Academics may not, however, be sensitive to the nature of student difficulties here, interpreting writing which does not fit their requirements as evidence of an unskilled student rather than a student who lacks knowledge of the deeper epistemological requirements of a discipline or thematic area to which they are new: in practice, what makes a piece of student writing ‘appropriate’ has more to do with issues of epistemology than with the surface features of form to which staff often have recourse when describing their students’ writing. That is to say, underlying, often disciplinary, assumptions about the nature of knowledge affected the meaning given to the terms ‘structure’ and ‘argument’. (Lea and Street 1998: 163) Not all academics handle their role as disciplinary authority figures in a fashion likely to foster students’ genuine understanding or a perception of learning as conceptual change. In the study Lea and Street report, students do not receive feedback on their work until after the module has been completed and they are in process of studying another. Their opportunities for personal development are thus restricted. Modularity offers flexibility of a kind but one which can create an environment where students’ intrinsic wish to understand what is required in each module is undermined by particular features of the assessment context and the feedback from lecturers. As Boud and Walker (1998) have argued, the effects of context on

188 Mary Thorpe how students’ construe learning and what is required to succeed within a particular milieu cannot be avoided. Innovatory practice has to address the effects of dominant modes of practice within the institution and cannot hope to insulate itself completely via the boundaries of a particular innovation. Student-centred learning is often promoted through approaches which value independent study modes and varieties of open and distance learning. These offer the learner accessible provision but at a cost. Stress for example has often been reported by students working on distance and part-time courses (Evans 1994: 106–107). By not attending classes, students have reduced the barriers that attendance creates but increased the pressures on their own time (see also Smith et al. 1997: 47). Many do not reduce other activities but simply add on the course-related demands to those created by existing work and domestic responsibilities. ‘Fitting it in’ is one of the most frequent difficulties expressed by students and the strategies they use can create in effect forms of self-exploitation, sometimes continuing over years. Students work late at night and early in the morning, on trains, listening while they drive, multi-tasking whenever possible, to fit in study without falling down on any existing responsibilities. Isolation from others who share the same learning goal is a frequent complaint, not only of self-directed and open learning programmes where students follow their own choices but where learning in the workplace only involves a minority. Efforts to provide mentors or to get family support do not always work or prove weak in practice (Temple 1991). Student-centred learning has to some extent over-emphasised the value of designing for individual differences and has not developed practical approaches for using the group as an effective support for learning.

Conclusion Putting pedagogical theory into practice has been the focus of this chapter. If the practice falls short of the promise held out by some of the theorists, it would be only fair to point out that the theory falls short of the demands practice makes upon it. Theory is often a poor guide when it comes to the difficult business of setting up teaching and learning interactions which will achieve what both learners and practitioners aspire to. In such situations there is an inspiration towards good practice, but much of the hard work of devising the ‘how to’ of practice is the practitioner’s responsibility.

Pedagogical implications 189 One of the insights which research does tell us most forcibly is that there is likely to be a disjunction between practitioner accounts of their own actions and the interpretations and responses of learners. Getting really close to learning and learner perceptions, as the researcher does, we discover that what is delivered by the provider is not necessarily what is perceived by the learner-recipient. Communicating pedagogical intent is a labour-intensive and resource-intensive business. The conditions for practice in higher education currently are particularly hostile to practice which is time consuming for the practitioner, or a diversion from research. The learning milieu also incorporates forces and influences which undermine the learning goals of pedagogy. As Brennan and Little have commented with respect to the institutional context: practice in higher education is based on custom and convention more than it is based on theories of knowledge and learning. This is one of the characteristics that makes change often so difficult to achieve. (Brennan and Little 1996: 57) While in some ways more student centred, universities are now serving a more diverse and demanding student population than ever before. The experience of women students, as Rowan points out in Chapter Nine (also see Thomas 1990), mature returners (Tight 1990) and black students (Rosen 1993) has been documented as one of cultural disjunction in many ways. The ‘non-traditional’ student may now be the majority in many systems of higher education, but we are still working out how their personal and work experience should be accommodated and responded to. Learners themselves also enter with multiple objectives. Some adopt purely instrumental orientations, unaffected by attempts to foster more personal involvement or transformational learning (Morgan 1993). In any event, qualifications are a material concern for all except a minority. The workplace and home, as well as the institutional context, will operate to support or to compete with and undermine the quality of learning which is possible. It would be unrealistic therefore to assume that pedagogy manifestly can resolve a challenge to learning quality which comes as much from social and economic change as from research into learning or the effectiveness of practitioners. None the less pedagogy has a proper sphere of influence and we have raised many instances of new demands being placed upon it. Practitioners are required to integrate

190 Mary Thorpe the traditions of discipline-based knowledge with effective application of skills and knowledge in work contexts. Their learners/clients are more numerous, more diverse and in many ways more challenging than ever before. If there is evidence that their practice is not always well founded, or incorporates confusions and compromise, it is perhaps not surprising. The solution is not to turn away from explicit pedagogy but to press for more evidence about pedagogy in use and to support research into learning in the context of the post-compulsory learning milieu – whether workplace or institution. It may be time to urge also that some at least of this effort focuses on practitioner action and the exploration of how interaction can be fostered which changes, as Laurillard argues, ‘how the learning proceeds’. During the last twenty years, the pendulum has swung appropriately and justifiably towards research into learning. There is evidence now to suggest that more research is needed into how exactly practitioner intervention and the interactions they initiate with learners, should be set up and should proceed.

References Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. and Hanesian, H. (1978) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Barnett, R. (ed.) (1992) Learning for Life, Buckingham: Open University Press. Bell, C., Bowden, M. and Trott, A. (eds) (1997) Implementing Flexible Learning, London: Kogan Page, with The Association for Educational and Training Technology. Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1989) ‘Intentional learning as a goal of instruction’, in L. Resnick (ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Boud, D. (1989) ‘Some competing traditions in experiential learning’, in S. Warner-Weil and I. McGill (eds) (1989) Making Sense of Experiential Learning: Diversity in Theory and Practice, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, with Society for Research into Higher Education. —— and Walker, D. (1998) ‘Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of context’, in Studies in Higher Education, 23 , 2: 191–206. Boud, D.J., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, London: Kogan Page. Brennan, J. and Little, B. (1996) A Review of Work Based Learning in Higher Education. London: Department for Education and Employment/Quality Support Centre, 344–354 Gray’s Inn Road.

Pedagogical implications 191 Brennan, J., Fraser, M., Middlehurst, R., Silver, H. and Williams, R. (1996) Changing Conceptions of Academic Standards, London: Quality Support Centre Higher Education Report No. 4. Brown, S.C. (ed.) (1997) Open and Distance Learning: Case Studies from Industry and Education, London: Kogan Page. Butler, L. (1993) ‘Unpaid work in the home and accreditation’, in M. Thorpe, R. Edwards and A. Hanson (eds) Culture and Processes of Adult Learning, London: Routledge. Collis, B. (1998) ‘Building evaluation of collaborative learning into a WWWbased course: pedagogical and technical experiences’, Journal of Open learning, 7, 1: 67–77. Davenport, J. (1993) ‘Is there any way out of the andragogy morass?’, in M. Thorpe, R. Edwards and A. Hanson (eds) Culture and Processes of Adult Learning, London: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath. Ellington, H. (1997) ‘Flexible learning – your flexible friend!’, keynote address, in C. Bell, M. Bowden and A. Trott (eds) Implementing Flexible Learning, London: Kogan Page, with The Association for Educational and Training Technology. Evans, T. (1994) Understanding Learners in Open and Distance Education, London: Kogan Page, the Open and Distance Learning Series. Fraser, W. (1995) Learning from Experience: Empowerment or Incorporation?, Leicester: National Institute for Adult Continuing Education. Hudson, R., Maslin-Prothero, S. and Oates, L. (eds) (1997) Flexible Learning in Action: Case Studies in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page, the Staff and Educational Development Series. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Laurillard, D. (1988) ‘Computers and the emancipation of students: giving control to the learner’, in P. Ramsden (ed.) Improving Learning: New Perspectives, London: Kogan Page. —— (1993) University Teaching, London: Routledge. Lea, M. and Street, B. (1998) ‘Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach’, Studies in Higher Education, 23, 2: 157–172. Loughran, J.J. (1996) Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning through Modelling, London: Falmer Press. Mason, R. (1994) Using Communications Media in Open and Flexible Learning, London: Kogan Page. McPherson, J., Hadfield, M. and Day, C. (1994) ‘Student perspectives and the effectiveness of continuing education’, in S. Haselgrove (ed.) The Student Experience, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

192 Mary Thorpe Morgan, A. (1993) Improving Your Students’ Learning: Reflections on the Experience of Study, London: Kogan Page, the Open and Distance Learning Series. Newby, T.J., Stepich, D.A., Lehman, J.D. and Russell, J.D. (1996) Instructional Technology for Teaching and Learning, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Nicoll, K. and Edwards, R. (1997) ‘Open learning and the demise of discipline?’, Open Learning, 12, 3: 14–22. Northedge, A. (1994) ‘Making open learning work at access level’, in M. Thorpe and D. Grugeon (eds) Open Learning in the Mainstream, Harlow: Longman. Race, P. (1993) The Open Learning Handbook: Promoting Quality in Designing and Delivering Flexible Learning, London: Kogan Page. Resnick, L.B. (ed.) (1989) Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rosen, V. (1993) ‘Black student in higher education’, in M. Thorpe, R. Edwards and A. Hanson (eds) Culture and Processes of Adult Learning, London: Routledge. Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books. Seagraves, L., Osborne, M., Neal, P., Dockrell, R., Hartshorn, D. and Boyd, A. (1996) Learning in Smaller Companies (LISC) Final Report, University of Stirling: Educational Policy and Development. Smith, C., Haddon, K. Smith, E. and Bratton, D. (1997) ‘Learning via multimedia: a study of the use of interactive multimedia to teach chemistry’, in R. Hudson, S. Maslin-Prothero and L. Oates (eds) Flexible Learning in Action: Case Studies in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page, the Staff and Educational Development Series. Temple, H. (1991) Open Learning in Industry: Developing Flexibility and Competence in the Workforce, Harlow: Longman Group Ltd. Thomas, K. (1990) Gender and Subject in Higher Education, Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Tight, M. (1990) Higher Education: A Part-Time Perspective, Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Warner Weil, S. and McGill, I. (eds) (1989) Making Sense of Experiential Learning: Diversity in Theory and Practice, Milton Keynes: Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education. Williams, J. (1997) ‘The discourse of access: the legitimation of selectivity’, in J. Williams (ed.) Negotiating Access to Higher Education: The Discourse of Selectivity and Equity, Buckingham: Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education.

11 Using media and technologies for flexible workplace learning David Hawkridge

Can flexible learning be successfully mediated by technology, particularly in the workplace, and should it be? What do we mean by ‘media’ and ‘technologies’? Which ones are available for flexible learning for or on the job? What are their characteristics? Successful mediated learning depends on the type and quality of interaction the technologies can support, as well as the nature of the content, the symbol systems of the media used and the context of learning. In the workplace, examples show that human–machine interaction must often be complemented by human–human interaction even if mediated by technology. The workplace may support flexible mediated learning or it may seriously limit what is feasible. Learning for the job does not have to be on the job. Learning off the job can be more fully mediated by technology and is usually extremely flexible. But trainees can be exploited by being expected to train in their own time. The success of flexible mediated learning has, as Thorpe argues in Chapter Ten, to be evaluated in several ways. First, are learners able to meet the objectives and, if not, is the educational design at fault? Second, even if learners are able to meet the objectives, is the flexible mediated learning system judged acceptable in political, social, economic and cultural terms? Answers to these questions require an evaluation methodology as yet underdeveloped. Companies seldom publish their internal evaluations. The future of flexible technology-mediated learning for and on the job seems assured, however, because of the strength of the commercial and technological trends that favour it. In many contemporary workplaces questions are now being asked about whether flexible learning can be successfully mediated by technology. To put it another way, can we use technology to improve trainees’ chances of success? This is a fundamental question, and the

194 David Hawkridge evidence needed to answer it is hard to find. There are plenty of examples in all countries of the simplest technology, namely print, being used for flexible learning. Around the world, you can see examples of broadcasting being used for flexible learning, too, though seldom in the workplace. Only certain industrialised countries, however, have succeeded in training using the latest technologies, and even in these cases evidence of cost-effectiveness is hard to obtain. Should flexible learning be mediated by technology then? You may prefer good old face-to-face ‘stand-up’ training. My own view is that the answer depends largely on human factors, as this chapter will show. If you are a training manager, you’ll certainly be interested in using technology for flexible learning in the workplace only if the human factors are fully taken into account. You would be well aware of trainees’ need for human support and of the dangers of automatically expecting them to train in their spare time.

Defining media and technologies Mass media are used to convey messages to the general population. Individual media, such as the networked computer and the telephone, are mostly used on a one-to-one basis, whereas mass media are seen as ‘one-to-many’ media. Mass media are essentially oneway; individual media are often two-way, supporting dialogue. This chapter is not about mass media or individual media. It is about technological media used for training in the workplace, whether one-to-one or one-to-many. But first consider the trainers. You’ll probably agree that all trainers are mediators in the sense that they mediate a great deal for their students. That’s to say, they interpret, change, add bias to and may even corrupt the knowledge and skills they seek to instil in their students. This is inevitable: trainers are channels that filter and change. They normally ‘re-present’ what they teach, but we don’t talk of them as media (shades of spirit mediums!). The training media are used by humans; they are not the humans themselves. These media are the means by which training is communicated between trainer and trainee, and possibly the other way too. In contrast, the mass media (television, radio and the press) can’t easily be used for training. Training can often be mediated or delivered by more than one medium (see next section for examples), hence the term ‘multimedia’: trainers use technological media in different combinations. A medium doesn’t present ‘reality’. A trainee using a technological medium doesn’t experience the actual trainer, face to face. Instead,

Technology and flexible workplace learning 195 the medium ‘re-presents’ the reality, filtering and changing it. What the trainee experiences is a representation. The most extreme example is called ‘virtual reality’ (VR). If you’ve tried on virtual reality goggles you’ll know what it feels like. The VR developers do all they can to convince you that you’re actually part of the action. You could say that media always mediate reality. Some media represent some things much better than others, but the mediation process, whichever medium is involved, limits this representation of reality. Technology, on the other hand, has a history as long as human culture. Writing is a technology, fundamental to the development of societies, particularly through mass education introduced since the rise of science and industry. Knowledge, skills and attitudes are mediated through technologies. In training this often done through printed manuals. Each medium requires its own technology for making and delivering – and representing – the messages it mediates. Modern technologies are systems and pieces of equipment: the television transmitter and the set in your living room are pieces of television technology. The medium, television, is more than just these. Consider, for example, the knowledge, skills and values behind the development and use of television systems for social purposes. You would probably agree that print technology appears to be ink put on paper, yet the print technologies are far more complicated than that, and the medium of print is nothing without language and literacy. The range of media and technologies available for flexible learning There’s now a wide range of media and technologies for flexible learning in the workplace. One way of grouping them is to look at the kinds of training they can deliver (see the table on p.196). Most of these media were designed for one-way communication. Is this good for flexible learning? Trainers in the workplace have traditionally favoured ‘delivery’ of training. They talk as if there were a standard set of training messages that needed to be ‘delivered’ to every single trainee, everywhere, almost like sacks of feed being delivered for battery hens to eat! That’s an exaggeration, of course. What companies want – but never get – is a uniformly high standard of performance from their trainees. If training manuals, audiocassettes, audiovision, videocassettes and other one-way media seem to do the trick, that’s good enough for most trainers. Two-way communication makes life more difficult for the trainer.

196 David Hawkridge Technologies

Media

Flexible learning examples

Ink on paper

Printed word, with still images

Training manuals

Electronic communication and/or computers

Onscreen word, with or Electronic mail to without still images trainees, computer conferencing among trainees, computer-based training

Electronic recording on tape, CD or in computer memory

Spoken word (with or without sound effects)

Audiocassettes, CDs, voice mail or streaming audio, for updating trainees

Electronic recording and/or communication

Spoken word, with graphics, plus printed text or onscreen word

Audiovision, audiographics or CDROM where trainees need to be ‘talked through’ the graphics

Electronic recording and/or communication

Spoken word, with Videocassettes, moving images (with or videodiscs, CD-ROM, without sound effects) videoconferencing, streaming video Still or moving images, Subtitled film, video, with words onscreen tape-slide, CD-ROM (with or without sound)

Film or electronic recording

Electronic mail, computer conferencing, voice mail and videoconferencing all expect the trainer and trainees to interact with each other. ‘Delivery’ is only the first stage. Feedback (a query, a trainee’s answer to a question, etc.) calls for a personal response from the trainer. Giving that response is time-consuming for the trainer, to put it mildly. Suddenly, the notion of standardised training collapses as trainees’ individual needs become obvious. Trainers using videoconferencing, for example, find that they can’t cope with many questions from individuals, if they allow their trainees the freedom to ask (Freeman 1998). There is another option, which looks like one-way communication at first sight, but for each trainee seems much more like two-way communication – that is, build the interaction into the software. Computer-based training and CD-ROMs can be designed in this way (Laurillard 1987). We will look at some examples of this in the next section.

Technology and flexible workplace learning 197

Interaction through media and technologies It is important to understand the term ‘interaction’. Successful mediated learning depends on the type and quality of interaction the technologies can support. Put simply, interaction is something that happens between two or more entities (a person or a thing). In interaction, each entity acts upon or influences the other, thus by definition, interaction is two-way. Think about these examples of trainer–trainee interaction. •

• • •

•

Trainer writes instructions on the whiteboard; trainee copies down the words, perhaps asking trainer to explain the terms used. Trainer explains a mathematical concept; trainee listens and asks questions. Trainer demonstrates to the group a chemical process, with the help of a trainee. Trainee asks for a manual on a specialised topic; trainer and trainee search factory index together to find one and trainer orders it. Trainee practises metal-turning skills on a lathe under trainer’s supervision.

In all five examples the trainer and trainee are working face-to-face in the same room. Now consider some examples of trainer–trainee interaction when they are not working together. •

•

•

•

Trainer provides instructions on disk for the trainee’s computer; trainee reads them and presses the ‘Help’ button for definitions of terms used. Trainer explains a mathematical concept on a CD-ROM, with video; trainee views the CD-ROM and tests his or her own understanding by taking a diagnostic test; for any questions answered incorrectly, there’s further remedial explanation available. Trainer demonstrates, on interactive videodisc, a chemical process to trainee; the disc requires the trainee to replicate the demonstration, with prompts and clues at various stages. Trainee needs a manual on a specialised topic; he or she searches the company’s training Website and downloads it for reading onscreen or to print it out.

198 David Hawkridge •

Trainee practises metal-turning skills in a computer-controlled virtual environment and submits ‘turned’ virtual objects to a virtual trainer for evaluation and advice.

In each two-way case, there’s no direct interaction, the training is being mediated by technology. There’s a trainer, but even in the last example the trainer is ‘in the machine’, not in the room. The training has been put into the machine by the trainer, and the trainee interacts with the programme in the machine. The machine requires the trainee to interact with it, possibly much more frequently and with greater impact than a trainer in the room would. It isn’t as simple as it sounds, of course, because designing and testing technology-mediated training is often a long and expensive business, as you can see from the examples below. The most difficult part may be building in the interaction. Three aspects need to be considered particularly carefully by the designers: the nature of the content, the symbol systems of the media used and the context of learning. At first glance, you might well think that the nature of the content should influence strongly which media the trainer chooses to use. Even a broad grouping of the content into knowledge on the one hand and skills on the other might lead the trainer to choose, say, the printed or onscreen word for delivering the knowledge and maybe still or moving images, with words onscreen, for delivering the skills. However, the content objectives probably call for application of the knowledge, not rote-learning. Without doubt, application can be practised and tested best through problem-solving situations presented by media that allow for human–machine interaction. Besides, in technical and scientific training programmes, trainees are often required to understand (a) mathematical symbols, (b) drawings and diagrams and (c) specialised notation and jargon. Such knowledge is best taught in context, within the content. These and other content considerations may make the trainer’s choice of media quite difficult (see Laurillard 1993, for a discussion of media choice in higher education). The symbol systems of each medium have to be taken into account. What’s a symbol system? The people who design messages in a medium such as video (which is closely related to film and television) are very much aware of the symbols or conventions that are used in that industry. We viewers are so accustomed to these symbol systems that we interpret them without consciously thinking about it. For example, we make sense of cuts from one scene to another in a

Technology and flexible workplace learning 199 video, a zoom out sets detail in context for us, a zoom in asks us to pay special attention to something, a panning shot portrays part of the surroundings and defocusing disengages our attention. The content is structured and coded for us by the producer using such symbol systems. If a trainer, in making a video, neglects them or worse still contradicts them, the trainees are likely to learn little from the mediated training. Symbol systems for the newest technologies are still being developed, however, only partly on the basis of what we’re used to in film, television and video. Designers of streaming video, for instance, which is a video sequence delivered over a network to a computer screen, may introduce new conventions which in due course will be accepted as the symbol systems of that medium. Computer software uses its own, not yet firmly established, conventions of text, pictures, colour and space on the screen. These are being absorbed into computer-based training design. The context of learning is vitally important. At a basic level, human–machine interaction is different if the trainees work singly, in pairs or in groups. If the trainer designs the software so that it teaches best through collaborative working by trainees, he or she is calling for forms of interaction with the machine that are different from the examples above, all of which were one-trainee-to-onemachine. In fact, in the workplace, quite a few examples show that human–machine interaction must often be complemented by human–human interaction, even if the latter is mediated by technology. That’s to say, trainees working singly or in pairs on a machine may need to be in touch with the real trainer from time to time, perhaps by email or telephone if not face to face. You may well have experience of this yourself. Before looking at real examples from training, scan Laurillard’s (1987: 80–82) impressive list of nine forms of interaction that can be built into a computer-based training program – adapted slightly by substituting ‘trainee’ for ‘student’ – and notice the differences between them. 1

2 3

information testing (programme tests the trainees’ knowledge and makes them aware that they do not always know what they think they know) information giving (programme provides feedback about wrong answers followed by remedial tuition where necessary) procedural information (programme provides feedback to help trainees arrive at the correct answer for themselves by carrying out a procedure)

200 David Hawkridge 4 5 6 7 8

9

hints (programme provides feedback to guide trainees towards the correct answer without actually providing it) instructions (programme provides feedback to encourage use of scientifically correct terms in answers) tested observations (programme tests the accuracy of trainee’s observations during the programme) untested observations (programme tells trainees to view at their own pace, without guidance) hypothesis framing (programme expects trainees to use their knowledge and understanding of the subject to solve a realworld problem, thus bridging the gap between theory and practice) simulations (programme asks trainees to respond during or after viewing a simulation, possibly of an industrial process).

The human trainer’s skills can be applied to teaching content through using some or all of these in designing computer-based training. All nine can also be replicated in CD-ROMs and Web-based training.

Using media and new technologies for flexible learning Some examples of flexible workplace learning In the business world, flexible learning systems are popular and specialised training centres offer tutorial packages, and so on. You may have heard these systems referred to as ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’, however, because there’s so little research evidence that they either enhance training or make it more cost effective. Do they offer overall savings, given enough trainees to justify the high up-front costs? Are they more flexible compared with traditional training? It’s hard to say. Case studies in the retail, manufacturing, banking, financial services and telecommunications sectors show that companies, usually large ones, use technology-based training because of the perceived cost benefits and flexibility in the time and place of training (see Hawkridge et al. for full discussion of the issues, and Tucker 1997 for an overview). British Telecom (BT), a pioneer in the UK in using computer-based training, introduced it from the US in 1980–81, for engineers’ procedural training. The company moved into interactive video in 1986 for management training. Restructuring of BT led to each ‘business unit’ becoming responsible for training, and technology-based training lost ground as the central training department became

Technology and flexible workplace learning 201 weaker. BT is one of the companies using multimedia CD-ROM. For example, Roadwork Guarding is on CD-ROM, with animation, audio and graphics, and was made for BT by a production company. It trains repair crews to set up the proper precautions at roadworks. They are expected to use the CD-ROM without support from a trainer. BT perceives weaknesses in technology-based training, however. Costs for production are all up front. Because costs are spread – by the accountants – only over the period of development, not including delivery, this kind of training looks very expensive. The car manufacturer Ford, of Britain, has a policy of making interactive training for its own purposes that’s also useful to other companies, particularly to their suppliers. Ford has shown that its videodiscs can deliver training that’s available 24 hours of the day and enjoyable for trainees, despite the lack of support from a trainer on the spot. A well-known example is Statistical Process Control (SPC). This was made at a cost of £1 million, recouped through Ford successfully selling – to its internal operations and its supply network – both the concept of statistical process control and the use of interactive video training. There were about 1,000 suppliers in Europe at that time. An independent but unpublished evaluation showed that trainees enjoyed learning through this medium and became completely engrossed in the subject matter. SPC became the most widely used interactive video training package in Europe because all personnel working in the manufacturing environment needed some basic understanding of statistical process control. It was translated into Portuguese, German, Spanish and Flemish. Well over half a million people used it. Its impact was considerable: for example, one company was reportedly at the bottom of the quality league table among Ford’s suppliers, but use of SPC resulted in significant changes and quality improvement. Indeed, the disc won many awards, including a Gold Award in 1991 in recognition of its impact and the scale of use. This example called for interaction of the nine kinds Laurillard listed, and provided benefits beyond those originally envisaged by the trainers. Lloyds Bank (now LloydsTSB Group) adopted laserdisc interactive video in 1985, when it sent training trolleys to its 1,473 UK branches and commissioned production companies to make costly courses. By 1987, twenty such courses were in use. In 1990, installation of 25,000 workstations in branches created an immediate need for training, served through about thirty short computer-based training programmes, downloaded from the local server to PCs without disk drives in the branches. But more training technology could not be

202 David Hawkridge installed in branches for lack of space and other reasons, therefore Lloyds Bank set up 120 local flexible training centres offering computer-based training, interactive video courses and CD-ROM versions. (Since then, as in other banks, many branches have closed as LloydsTSB Group has downsized and gone more electronic, and trainees receive less support from trainers). Other examples of banking and financial companies using technology-based flexible training in the UK are Allied Dunbar, Barclays Bank, The Halifax, NatWest Bank, Prudential Assurance, Royal Bank of Scotland and Sun Life. Price Waterhouse is a large international accountancy firm with interests in twenty countries. It started to use interactive videodisc in 1986, and in the UK it commissioned programs from commercial producers. Remarkably, most of the discs are also sold to other companies, many of them Price Waterhouse clients. One early example of its interactive video training is Account Ability. The firm wished to teach its new junior auditors the high-level intellectual skills involved in interpreting financial statements. Starting from the knowledge of Price Waterhouse’s own experts, the trainers identified a seven-step approach to interpretation that has now become an accepted methodology. The program’s aims are to equip the learner to: • • • •

understand how to read a balance sheet and a profit and loss account; know how and where to start to gather data; interpret financial statements to form an effective assessment of the business; and feel confident with accounts and appreciate their subjective nature.

The target audience is primarily accountants; but also includes managers (for example, branch and area managers of financial institutions) who need to develop an overall awareness of finance in their organisations, plus management consultants and students of business and finance. Account Ability is dramatic and novel. Trainees works alongside Detective Philip Marlow to solve a murder associated with Plastac’s accounts. The seven hours’ worth of interactive material can be worked through by individuals or groups at their own pace. They can refer back to it for reinforcement and revision. Learning resources within the system include video and graphics tutorials,

Technology and flexible workplace learning 203 onscreen help, a dictionary of 300 specialist terms and an onscreen report after each stage to confirm the main learning points. Printed workbooks supplement the videodisc. There is no support from trainers on the spot. As well as receiving positive feedback from a variety of users, Account Ability won several awards. Price Waterhouse expected it to pay for itself, and it was sold to other companies. Price Waterhouse joined forces with Charterhouse Bank to commission Risky Business, which focuses on managing currency risk. Terminal Risk followed, dealing with the computer’s role in business and the associated risks. Like Account Ability, both of these videodisc packages make use of a cinematic storyline and introduce a structured methodology, with many opportunities for trainees to respond. A more recent series, Business In Sight, promised to be equally successful, with titles such as: Operations, Marketing, Business Strategy and Finance. The British supermarket chain, Sainsbury’s, concentrates its technology-based flexible training in its retail systems. In the 1980s, it developed mainframe packages that ran on dumb terminals with user interfaces that differed from those of the real terminals. With updating, Sainsbury’s moved to networked PCs in stores, linked to its mainframes. Packages could be downloaded to the PCs during course start-up. In particular, they provided training in the automated receiving and dynamic stock inventory sub-system, a shift from ‘hands-on’ to ‘hands-off’ ordering in an electronically managed and wholly integrated supply system. Sainsbury’s also created thirty flexible learning centres, providing some technology-based training. These centres had trainers to provide trainees with occasional support. Sun Microsystems is an international company manufacturing and selling computer hardware and software. It has a software group, SunSoft, that provides training to staff of the company and its partner companies. Current courses include Web Enhanced Solaris, Sun Security Manager, Solstice Backup, Sun Internet Mail Server, The Sun Workshop Product Family and Solstice Enterprise Manager. Another group, Educational Services Worldwide Campus, provides Sun with courses in the JavaTutor series. Multimedia CD-ROMs are the main vehicle, with some Web-based material. For each course, about 6,000 CDs are mailed to Sun’s departments world-wide for distribution to staff who may need them. Individual staff use the CDs when and where it suits them to do so: they like being able to use travelling time productively, for example. Test questions at the end of

204 David Hawkridge each section help them to prepare for an online test from which, if they are successful, they gain accreditation for that course. There is no immediate access for trainees to a human trainer. In the manufacturing sphere, British Aerospace, Mobil Europe Lubricants, Rolls Royce, Vauxhall Motors and Zenica Pharmaceuticals all use technology-based flexible training. Anglian Water, Argos, Body Shop, British Gas, British Steel, Coca Cola and Specsavers are examples from other spheres (Houldsworth and Hawkridge 1996; Tucker, 1997). All these examples are providing experience from which we can learn and this is the task of the following section. Lessons from experience What lessons have been learnt so far in using technologies as a medium for flexible workplace learning? There has actually been a trend away from using technology solely for flexible training of employees in the lower level skills associated with many early drill and practice programmes. Interactive packages now provide training in some of the ‘softer’ higher level managerial skills, such as counselling and interviewing. The target audience for these is typically first-line management upwards. Human resource developers, facilitators and trainers are not usually at hand to provide immediate support. New interactive videodisc titles run on advanced desk-top machines, often housed in specialised Open Learning Centres, Learning Resource Centres or Flexible Learning Centres. But these centres may become redundant soon because CD-ROMs, DVD (Digital Video Disc) and Web-based courses are starting to replace interactive videodisc (Barron 1998). The Web, in particular, offers great flexibility when updating is required, as Microsoft has found with its MCP Online. You might expect the workplace to support flexible technologymediated learning, but it may also seriously limit what is feasible. There are interesting stories about supervisors who don’t want workers to leave the workplace to go to the local flexible learning centre, for instance. Even when training is ‘on tap’ inside a branch, employees may not be able to get ‘time off’ to use the materials. They may even have to battle to free up a computer to get some training done. Centralised training departments can face opposition from local managers, and so on. A lack of trainers to provide face-to-face support can be a political problem. Learning for the job doesn’t have to be on the job, however.

Technology and flexible workplace learning 205 Learning off the job can be more fully mediated by technology and is usually extremely flexible. This is where the Web has great advantages. Lend an employee a portable computer with modem, issue a username and password, and as training manager you can set up completely flexible training accessible from the employee’s home, or almost anywhere in the world where there’s a phone. Don’t bother yet about streaming audio and video, which are underdeveloped in this field: your capacity to set up hundreds of pages of off-the-job training on the company’s server may be limited by your trainers’ skill in preparing the text and graphics. Even the HTML (HyperText Mark-up Language) code required to lay out pages is now available in some word-processing packages for automatic application. The problems of evaluation are recognised by most companies: they know that they can’t be certain whether the training they use is cost effective. A few years ago, because evidence of success was so hard to find, it seemed that there wouldn’t be much more technologybased training developed by major companies for their own use – except where it was virtually unavoidable, as in aircrew training and nuclear power station training. For example, the banks weren’t at all sure they’d invested well after putting millions into in-house training based on mainframes. Some, like the Bank of America, pulled out altogether. Others were so busy down-sizing and closing branches that they held back on putting flexible training facilities into operation. Elsewhere, there’s growing dependence on Web-based courses and off-the-shelf training programmes, widely available through commercial producers and distributors. Few companies are making their own CD-ROMs for training the way Sun has. International companies make substantial use of videoconferencing for training because it transmits traditional ‘stand-up’ sessions to distant places. Trainers have to make minimal changes in their own style and possibly get a kick out of being ‘on the telly’, though only to a small captive audience. Sessions aren’t exactly enhanced by the limited opportunities given to trainees for asking questions, or by the poor graphics added by trainers to their own ‘talking heads’. The main attraction for companies lies in standardisation of training, not in any flexibility, because trainees have to gather at fixed places at fixed times and often waste time owing to technical delays (Freeman 1998). Costs, were they calculated, would probably be low for preparing the content (which the trainer has often taught previously in a face-to-face session) but quite high for equipping the meeting places and possibly for travel expenses to them. And that brings up the question of evaluating flexible technology-mediated training.

206 David Hawkridge Evaluating flexible learning mediated by technology Managers want trainees to meet the training objectives, and if they do not, then the training design is often considered to be at fault. A fuller evaluation might also consider whether the system is acceptable in political, social, economic and cultural terms. Training design Flexible learning is acquiring its own body of design knowledge. Noting that flexibility is a key construct in European training, Nikolova and Collis (1998) look at design from two perspectives: the trainees’ and the designers’. Increased flexibility for the trainee seems to ensure greater productivity from the training system. The goal for designers is to provide training that enables trainees to learn when and as often as they want to, in the manner they want and what they want. Flexibility has many dimensions for learners: Collis et al. (1995) identify no less than nineteen, ranging from when the course begins to how it is delivered. Just-in-time, workplace-based, problem-induced training, continued as needed throughout the trainee’s employment, is what designers should aim for, suggest Nikolova and Collis (1998). Probably the training should be designed in small modules for greater flexibility. Possibly it should not even be offered as separate courses unless accreditation is required. Each trainee can negotiate personal training targets with the trainer. Individualised training allows for greater flexibility than work in groups, but asynchronous contact via email, bulletin boards and computer conferencing now gives trainees flexible opportunities to learn together, with or without their trainer. Testing and portfolio assessment can be flexible, too, with the Web as a vehicle for conveying tests, test data and other information to and fro. Political, social and cultural factors New technology-based training systems are often more flexible than traditional training. Many trainees don’t want to wait for training or even leave the place of work. One British employee said: The Open Learning Centre is in another branch – it’s a 15minute round trip and people have to give up time to get there, so it’s not immediately accessible. It’s a real disadvantage that it’s

Technology and flexible workplace learning 207 not on site – people would use it more [at] lunchtimes when it’s tipping down with rain. Because of the positioning it’s not used as often as it could be and you have to book to use it.1 Another said: ‘I was hurried through one bit and didn’t have chance to re-visit it, couldn’t backtrack … I felt … I don’t know … as though they were channelling me in a certain direction.’ Some trainees are frustrated by not being able to debate with the machine and the fixed body of knowledge it contains. One said: ‘I found it frustrating when I disagreed. I wanted to be able to say so to the system … I personally would have liked to open it up to debate.’ Other trainees want more guidance when using technology-based training. They feel that the human element is missing: We still came out saying well, what do we do? We wanted someone to show us how to coach … if you had someone there you could have asked questions, we wanted a structure and guidelines to feel more confident about. There are still things that it didn’t answer for me – going to have to muddle through … I wanted it to tell me I was doing it right. The common theme seems be that technology-based training systems work well in conjunction with a normal course, as a warm up. As one training manager put it: don’t think you can just do one of these and have as much benefit as doing one in connection with a course … with technology-based you haven’t got the social aspect, [you] need to build technology-based into a wider learning environment … certainly they are a good stop gap if someone is new to a role and can’t get a training course for a couple of months. These examples suggest that the hype about the benefits needs to be balanced with greater understanding of the human factors, such as an individual’s training needs and their circumstances. Economic factors Strictly speaking, cost-effectiveness studies aim at quantifying in nonmonetary terms the outputs of a training system. Cost-benefit studies aim at quantifying in monetary terms both input and outputs. In the field of flexible technology-mediated training, you’ll find very few

208 David Hawkridge such studies. Comparative cost studies don’t exist, probably because the cost structure is different in every case, even in successive trials in the same company. Although conventional trainers must often be trained for the job, and are then expected to prepare the training they provide, the costs they incur are small in comparison with the costs of designing and developing custom-built multimedia systems. Generally speaking, cost savings occur in this kind of training only when large numbers of trainees use the software. Consider this US example: at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, new customer service representatives used to spend about thirteen weeks of their first year being trained face-to-face. The Department commissioned the preparation of seven laserdiscs that can deliver a similar training programme four hours per day for five weeks. The discs can also be used for remedial training. Given the large number of trainees needed for this huge city, the costs were probably recouped in only one year (Training 1994). For a discussion of cost-analysis issues see Rumble (1997). What are the benefits to be expected from flexible technologymediated training? A hard-nosed manager thinks of benefits in terms of whether or not trainees have achieved the training objectives. He or she wants a ‘trained person’, able to do the job. The three main criteria for success are time, achievement and retention. Was the training quicker? Was the level reached as high or higher than before? Did the trainees retain the knowledge, skills and/or attitudes they acquired? Yet each of these questions is difficult to answer. In the few studies that compare flexible training with conventional methods, even time taken is hard to measure in the two settings, particularly if employees are expected to use the flexible training in their own time. Achievement is much more difficult to test. Companies seldom use measures that predict well whether the trainees can do the job better or not. Before-and-after paper-andpencil tests may yield impressive scores but don’t guarantee that trainees can perform well on the job. How can the evaluator provide a satisfactory report to the board of directors when costs can’t be calculated properly and when evidence of success is dubious? The use of media and technologies for flexible learning in the workplace simply isn’t based on that kind of economic analysis. Further, companies seldom make public their internal evaluations, lest they give a competitor some advantage.

Technology and flexible workplace learning 209

Conclusion Despite problems like those discussed above, the future of flexible technology-mediated learning for and on the job seems assured, not least in large companies, because of the strong commercial and technological trends that favour it. Large-scale, expensive systems will probably decline, but small-scale cheaper packages produced inhouse may increase. Firms will purchase off-the-shelf CD-ROM or web-based titles for training in general business and behavioural skills, as these apparently offer a more flexible and possibly more cost-effective training solution than in-house production of multimedia packages. Interactive videodisc – the demise of which has been long predicted – is a ‘lively corpse’, but new courses are being distributed on CD-ROM, DVD or over the web. For technical and economic reasons, interactive videodisc and CD-based training may still be delivered via special centres for a while. In the longer term, there will be a move towards highly accessible interactive Web-based resources, offering just-in-time training or information as required, without the trainee having to leave the workplace – or the home. And human factors will command more attention from trainers as this cheap but very flexible communication technology becomes universal. Note 1

This quote and subsequent ones are from a case study published on CDROM by the Open University. The names of respondents have been withheld for reasons of confidentiality at the company’ request.

References Barron, A. (1998) ‘Designing Web-based training’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 4: 355–370. Collis, B., Vingerhoets, J. and Moonen, J. (1995) ‘Flexibility as a key construct in European training: the Telescopia project’, Deutsche Telecom Generaldirektion Report, Bonn: Deutsche Telecom for European Commission. Freeman, M. (1998) ‘Video conferencing: a solution to the multi-campus large classes problem?’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 3: 197–210. Hawkridge, D., Newton, W. and Hall, C. (1988) Computers in Company Training, London: Croom Helm. —— and Houldsworth, E. (1996) ‘Sainsbury’s evolving learning technology’, Open Learning, 11, 2: 44–46.

210 David Hawkridge Houldsworth, E. and Hawkridge, D. (1996) ‘Technology-based training in large UK companies’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 1: 51–60. Laurillard, D. (1987) ‘Pedagogical design for interactive video’, in D. Laurillard (ed.) Interactive Media: Working Methods and Practical Applications, Chichester: Ellis Horwood. —— (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology, London: Routledge. Lee, W. and Mamone, R.A. (1995) The Computer Based Training Handbook, Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Nikolova, I. and Collis, B. (1998) ‘Flexible learning and design of instruction’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 1: 59–72. Rumble, G. (1997) The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning, London: Kogan Page. Tucker, B. (1997) Handbook of Technology-Based Training, London: Gower.

12 Flexible delivery and flexible learning Developing flexible learners? Terry Evans

When I first encountered the term ‘flexible learning’ some years ago, I was wryly amused at its possible meanings and implications. I had visions of learners bending and flexing as they learned their calculus, psychology or history. Given the enthusiasm with which it has been adopted in some countries, perhaps I should have been more respectful. Educators – or, more likely, educational policy-makers and politicians – have landed teachers and trainers with some rather ‘challenging’ names of forms of educational practice over the years. Those familiar with (what is now called) distance education will know that there are various terms which have been used to name practices in the field: ‘external studies’, ‘correspondence education’, ‘extramural studies’, ‘extension studies’, ‘off-campus study’; and some of these are still in use. The schools sector has had its fair share with ‘open classrooms’, ‘discovery learning’ and ‘integrated studies’. But perhaps some of the most difficult for those of us involved in the teaching and training of adults have been those which have sought to describe our various excursions outside the classroom, not just in the physical sense, but also in the curricular and pedagogical senses. Some of those are terms from distance education mentioned above, but others have been those more concerned with (ostensibly at least) focusing on the learners’ and/or employers’ needs, interests and contexts. As Nunan explains in Chapter Four, such terms are ‘independent learning’, ‘open learning’, ‘open training’ or, of course, ‘flexible learning’ or ‘flexible delivery’. I have some difficulties with each of these terms. As a start, one can ask if they stand against their corollaries, ‘dependent learning’, ‘closed learning’, ‘closed training’ or, in our case here, ‘inflexible learning’ or ‘inflexible delivery’. I expect the proponents of the original terms would say that, at least to a degree, they do stand against these corollaries. However, the corollaries are unnamed and

212 Terry Evans unclaimed. It is unlikely that an institution names itself as being a ‘dependent learning organisation’ or says it has an ‘inflexible delivery unit’, or would claim to promulgate ‘dependent learning’ or ‘inflexible learning’. So, in this sense, the advocates of ‘flexible learning’ and ‘flexible delivery’ are constructing ‘straw men’ to knock down. However, they are also setting themselves and their claimed practices up to be knocked down in the sense that if one claims to be ‘flexible’, then the first signs of ‘inflexibility’ (in approaches, administration, finance, etc.) are likely to attract criticism. Harris, in his book entitled Openness and Closure in Distance Education, demonstrated this very powerfully with regard to the UK Open University until the mid 1980s (Harris 1987). Naming an organisation as ‘open’ means that its elements of closure are deemed to breach its claim to openness. (It will be interesting to see if consumer protection legislation and procedures are ever deployed by disgruntled students or by consumer ‘watchdogs’!) The same problem spills into educational organisations or human resource development departments that name and claim ‘flexibility’ as a quality of their services or ‘products’. What does this really mean in terms of their curricula, teaching methods, enrolment practices, administrative and financial procedures? It seems that many of the ‘flexible delivery/learning’ organisations probably have one of a number of characteristics. They are likely to be involved in some aspects of distance education: for example, they may provide course materials for use in the home or workplace, and they may provide some computer-based communication or delivery of materials. They may also have some features of open learning such as: they may provide open access to courses in terms of the absence of course prerequisites; they may be open to recognition of prior learning or to cross-crediting of other institutions’ courses. They may also exhibit some features of workplace-based education such as providing tuition in the workplace or accrediting industry trainers to provide recognised courses. In effect, it is difficult to see what ‘flexible delivery’ might be that is different from, say, open learning, although it is likely that, in some contexts, the symbolism and meanings of these terms are powerfully differentiated. An example of this sort of differentiation occurred when ‘open learning’ arose within the education and human resource development industries in the UK during the 1980s. It received a considerable fillip in Thatcher’s Britain when the Manpower Services Commission, and later the Training Commission, adopted and marketed ‘open learning’ as the term for its contracted-out, industry-specific training

Developing flexible learners? 213 packages. In many respects, the ‘open learning’ was ‘closed training’ which was generally more accessible than other forms of collegebased training. The move to ‘flexible delivery’ in the training sector in Australia represents a 1990s version of British ‘open learning’. However, initially the impetus for the move was more obvious in the higher education sector where there was a concern to name practices as being different from distance education. This was principally because the government had designated specific providers of distance education in an attempt to ‘rationalise’ provision and enhance quality. Therefore, those non-designated institutions had to find another term to describe their off-campus practices. ‘Flexible delivery’ fitted the bill nicely. It drew on the new discourses of management and industry as they responded to the international shifts toward ‘flexible’ work practices, production systems and distribution systems (see Haughey in Chapter Two and Jakupec in Chapter Five). It also enabled institutions, though being ‘flexible’, to blend forms of on-campus and off-campus delivery – therefore, they were not practising (pure) distance education and could arguably avoid the government’s strictures in this regard. The emergence of the Internet and the web was also an important driver of educational organisations into offering courses through other than on-campus means. Again, the term ‘flexible delivery’ was sufficiently undefined to be adopted and adapted for inclusion of the prospective Internet and web-based pedagogies. If we accept that some educational institutions or human resource development departments and their staff practise flexible delivery and offer flexible learning, then what does it mean for the learner to be flexible, to learn flexibly? Are there characteristics that are required of learners when they apply to enrol which, if they do not possess them, will prevent their enrolment or impede their progress? Or is the flexibility actually to do with the institutions and not the learners: that is, they are involved, more literally (as King indicates in Chapter Seven), in flexible teaching – perhaps this is what is meant by flexible delivery? If so, then this means that the learner is taken as the point or position to which the organisation must flex. However, educational institutions, although not usually human resource development departments, require many learners, usually thousands, in order to be financially viable. It seems, therefore, that a flexible delivery institution needs to flex to multiple points or positions (that is to multiple learners) in order to live up to its claim of offering ‘flexible delivery’. In a previous study, I have investigated the diversity that is encompassed in mature age, off-campus students in Australia and the UK (Evans 1994). Rowan, in Chapter Nine, and

214 Terry Evans Smith (1998) have also investigated the differences in learning styles which some groups of learners bring to their studies and the latter is of the view that there is much more research to be done here (also see Smith and Lindner 1986). This chapter will take this matter further and explore what it means to deliver education and training flexibly, especially in terms of being flexible to learners’ needs, interests and contexts.

Conceptualising flexible delivery and flexible learning Perhaps the first task is to try and conceptualise flexible delivery and flexible learning. In essence, this is at a best a case of retrospective clarification of unexpressed or implicit meanings and assumptions behind educational terms, or at worst it is fabricating the meaning and logic of ideological slogans. However, whatever the task, it is greatly aided by understanding the contexts in which these terms have arisen. It is here that some of the literature from open learning and distance education is useful. In the early 1980s, Peters conceptualised distance education as an industrial model of educational delivery. He saw its instructional design, print and other media production, forms of distribution, assessment and evaluation as being typified by the ways in which an industry designs, produces, distributes and evaluates its products (Peters 1983). As a model it was useful and in many ways it was not dissimilar to the way Harris had described the educational technology paradigm which shaped the UK Open University (Harris 1987). However, the difference between Peters’ scholarship and that of Harris is that the former was (at least interpreted as) normative – that is, it purported to show what was a normal, worthwhile and unproblematic means of distance education – whereas the latter was critical – that is, it actively questioned the assumptions, purposes and outcomes of the approach. Both works attracted their own critics, but it is Peters’s work that is important here. Some years later, Peters sought to clarify and elaborate his position (Peters 1989). He argued that his position was not normative but rather that it was descriptive and explanatory of what could be observed in the operations of distance education organisations. In essence, his position was that he was not advocating industrial forms of distance education – what Evans and Nation have called ‘instructional industrialism’ (Evans and Nation 1987, 1989) – but rather this was how most distance education could be characterised. Peters’ industrial model was based on a notion of industry that

Developing flexible learners? 215 has been termed as ‘Fordist’ after the mode of assembly-line car production developed by Henry Ford in the early part of the twentieth century. However, the discussions in the journals Distance Education (see, for example, issue 16, 3, 1995) and Open Learning have drawn on contemporary theories of work and industry more broadly (see, for example, Campion and Renner 1991; Campion 1992; Rumble 1995). There are some quite complex and strongly contested arguments made in these debates. One broad matter is whether educational organisations of any kind can be compared usefully with production industries. However, it is common nowadays to use the discourse of business management to describe the management and administration of everything from the small rural primary school through to the large, multi-campus university. So the comparison is made at these levels at least, even if in pedagogical terms it is less common. The other matter is whether the changing nature of economies and the changes induced by new technologies have changed production systems into new ‘post-Fordist’ forms. One of the problems with seeing educational organisations as production industries is that, in essence, the product is produced by the ‘consumer’ or ‘customer’ (Garrick expands on this issue in Chapter Fourteen). When Peters saw forms of distance education as analogous to industrial production, he saw the course materials as the products. Of course, the course materials produced for any form of resource-based learning are essential; however, they are only a means to producing the ‘product’. The final outcome or ‘product’ of any educational ‘production process’ is the learning which learners accomplish. In effect, this learning is the knowledge, skills and/or values that the learners possess after being taught by the organisation. It could be argued that an employer has invested in such forms of human resource development in order that they may capitalise upon it too. Whist this is the case, it is also true that the investment is in the employee and, notwithstanding the training they may pass on to others in the company, the investment walks out of the door with them when they leave. Of course, the employees’ or learners’ ‘possession’ of such knowledge, skills and/or values is intangible: it is their minds that possess the products. Forms of assessment, examination and testing require learners to demonstrate that they do, in fact, possess the required knowledge, skills and/or values. Sometimes the extent and quality of their possession is graded, rewarded and even honoured. Some might see these arguments as a reiteration or repetition of a constructivist view of learning. Although they do match those of the

216 Terry Evans constructivists, I am more concerned to keep the analysis at the level of organisational analysis rather than learning theory. The important point I will show here is that notions of flexibility as they have emerged in education have their roots in the organisation of work and industry rather than within educational theories. It is important to understand that if the approaches to organising industries are to be applied to education, then educational organisations need to understand what sorts of industries they resemble and what sorts they do not. In this case, given the nature and possession of the product in education, it seems clear that education cannot be compared appropriately with a production industry at all. Given that the value which the ‘consumers’ or ‘customers’ receive is something intangible and possessed within the body or mind, then it seems that education can be better compared to a service, rather than a production, industry. For example, recreation, tourism and news media might provide better comparisons. The recreation, tourism and news media industries in the past decade or more have been challenged and influenced by the impact of new technology and the changing nature of work. This is not the place to describe all those changes, many of which will be familiar to most people; however two key elements which emerge in these industries are diversity and choice. There is a diversity of products, services, prices, forms of payment, delivery and access from which the customer, depending on their wealth and other characteristics, can choose. These industries often refer to their services as ‘products’, but in effect, rather like education, the consumption and possession of these products is within the body and mind of the consumers. The benefits of a holiday in Torquay or Tenerife or reading the Times or watching CNN are embodied within the consumer, and there is no physical product which can be possessed or traded on the second-hand market in the way that, for instance, a car or table can be. There can be no garage sale for ‘pre-loved’ recreational, news or current affairs experiences!

The emergence of flexible delivery Notions of diversity, choice and ‘flexibility’ are central to postFordist modes of industrial production, and to post-modern or late-modern forms of social organisation in general. Flexible learning and flexible delivery in education can be seen as a consequence of these changes. As societies have become more complicated and diverse, so has the amount and nature of education. Whereas most

Developing flexible learners? 217 people in the ‘developed world’ in the 1960s used to leave school during their mid-teens and enter the workforce, perhaps with some formal education in the form of an apprenticeship; nowadays it would be normal for most to complete school and to continue with tertiary education. Furthermore, they are increasingly being expected to re-engage with tertiary education or forms of professional or staff development during their adult working lives. The volume of education and human resource development has certainly increased. However, a perusal of the courses offered in tertiary institutions and through company training programmes shows that the diversity of what is offered (and expected) has also increased enormously. Given this expansion of both the need for continuing education and training throughout working life and the diversity of what is required, it becomes clear that the conventional forms of teaching through educational organisations and, perhaps to a lesser extent, through company training operations are under challenge. Attendance at a college, university or training room during the working day clashes with the needs of both the employee and the employer. Conventional, mass, homogeneous courses are also unlikely to match the needs of people from a variety of backgrounds, at different stages of their careers and in different industries. As Haughey so well describes in Chapter Two, with the advent of global markets the pressure is on every society to develop its knowledge and skills to the standard of the illusory and shifting ‘worlds’ best practice’. The economic, technological and social changes of the last decades of the twentieth century have created the conditions which require forms of education and training which are adapted to these conditions, especially to the needs of the learners. Over this same period there has been a considerable expansion in the provision of part-time courses, especially for those undertaking what might be called professional development courses. There has also been a growth in the numbers of nations that have distance education provision, an increase in the numbers of institutions providing distance education and a vast increase in the numbers of students studying at a distance. Indeed, Sir John Daniel, the Vice-Chancellor of the UK Open University, has studied the development and growth of ‘mega-universities’. These universities almost invariably function with substantial or entire distance education operations (Daniel 1996). They are also either actively involved in international delivery of their courses (some might even say ‘global delivery’) and/or they have enormous national populations to support their operations. A good example

218 Terry Evans here is the Indira Ghandi National Open University and the various state open universities in India (Panda 1996). The development of these forms of distance education provision can be seen partly as a reaction to the needs for more flexible forms of educational provision. For many of these providers, it was matters of access and equity which were (and often remain) at the core of their establishment and development. However, the changing economic, social and technological conditions have created a demand for education which is less about providing people who are socially and economically disadvantaged with educational opportunities but rather providing those who may well be well placed socially and economically with the educational opportunities to develop their professional and technical knowledge and skills (Kirkpatrick 1997). My own university is a case in point. As a dual mode (that is oncampus and off-campus) educational provider established in the 1970s, an important part of Deakin University’s mission was to provide access to those who ‘missed out’ on university education in their youth. By the late 1980s, Deakin University’s experience and reputation for distance education had contributed to a small but significant profile in fee-paying professional, award and non-award, courses in business. Today, the university has its own private operation for such courses, called Deakin Australia, with enrolments totalling 27,000 per year. The shift reflected in Deakin University’s brief history is symptomatic of the shift to what is now called ‘flexible learning’ or ‘flexible delivery’ in universities generally. Indeed, Deakin University in most of its promotional materials defines itself as being involved in flexible delivery, rather than distance education, some of it right at the heart of human resource development in companies. Fundamental to the development of these forms of education, especially the moves to international and global provision of courses, has been the development of the new computer and communications technologies. The ‘traditional’ print (and audiovisual media) production services of distance education have been revolutionised by these new technologies. Some see print as ‘old technology’, but rather it can be seen as a technology which has been invigorated by the computer and communications world. It is instructive to recall that there were people in the 1980s predicting the paperless office once computers had taken hold. The prediction was so wrong! Indeed, there is more paper produced now as ‘output’ from computers and electronic transmissions than there was in the days when the typewriter and postal service ruled. The new capacities for ‘desk-top’

Developing flexible learners? 219 graphic and editorial design by computers have enhanced the volume, quality and nature of print. It is now a more ‘flexibly produced’ educational medium which retains its portability, resilience and independence of any other requirements other than sufficient light. Therefore, it seems inevitable that organisations involved in flexible delivery will need to remain vigorous in developing and sustaining their print capacities because flexible learners will need and expect this. The new computer and communications technologies are rapidly changing and enhancing the capacity for flexible delivery. These technologies are behind many of the globalising forces and are shaping the social and economic conditions of nations, as well as education more specifically (see Evans 1995, 1997). For example, web-based development and delivery of courses is coming to be regarded as an essential ingredient of most contemporary educational organisations. Even the school sector is making increasing use of these facilities. However, a part of the shift to the web is often taken as embracing global markets. For the emerging ‘mega-universities’ and for global corporations that provide ‘on-line’ staff development and training, this may well be the case. However, for most educational providers the leap into web-based delivery represents as much a leap into the unknown as it does an extension of their educational delivery. This is especially the case where the introduction of web-based forms of ‘flexible’ educational delivery is the first and only step into ‘offcampus’ delivery for the organisation. As Rumble has argued for a somewhat different purpose, the ‘dual mode’ institutions are much better placed for the future because of their capacity to draw on the strengths of both on-campus and off-campus infrastructures (Rumble 1992). These infrastructures include the administrative and cultural conditions which support and value off-campus delivery and, especially, they understand and reflect the learners involved.

Constructing flexible learners Understanding learners is the most important feature of flexible delivery. It seems axiomatic that if an organisation aims to be flexible in terms of the delivery of education and training, then this flexibility needs to be directed to the ‘customers’. Therefore, a necessary condition of flexible delivery is to understand the learner’s needs and contexts. However, the social and economic contexts that have contributed the conditions which have led to the emergence of flexible delivery are not ones that are necessarily or entirely about individual

220 Terry Evans learners needs and interests (Jakupec 1997). Indeed, often the ‘customers’ of flexible delivery are seen to be the employers of the learners rather than, or sometimes as well as, the learners themselves. A good example of this is encapsulated in the statement in the New Zealand government’s 1997 Green Paper on tertiary education which states that: tertiary education must: • be available, responsive and flexible, so as to meet the needs and wishes of students and employers; • ensure that the skills gained are of value and relevance to the student, labour market and wider society. (Creech 1997: 7) This quotation neatly reflects Richard Edwards’ contention that the discourses of flexibility in education are constructed around notions of student (customer) choice, economic utility and relevance (Edwards 1997: 108–109). It is also arguable that these discourses are now constructing the student. I have made the point elsewhere (Evans 1994: 15) that in distance education when courses are constructed, the students are constructed also. Indeed, it is typical for courses to be developed before the people who become the students even know anything about them. In this sense, the provision of flexible delivery constructs choices for people to choose to become flexible learners. However, the essence of flexible delivery, as has been argued previously, is that it is supposed to be responsive to what the (future) learners want. Therefore, being ‘flexible’ in developing courses requires an openness to the learners’ (and often their employers’) requirements. At one level this seems quite appropriate, and even necessary, especially given the contemporary conditions in which learners live and work. However, education and training organisations have usually assumed that they know best when it comes to what is taught and how it should be taught. Certainly, in circumstances where courses are directly related to an industry or profession, there has usually been direct external representation on bodies such as accreditation committees that has produced curricula which reflect the needs and interests of the ‘clients’. However, in other types of courses, especially in universities, it is the teachers or trainers who largely determine what is taught and how – as Thorpe has shown in Chapter Ten. As the shift to flexible delivery and flexible learning requires ‘flexibility’

Developing flexible learners? 221 to the learners’ needs, interests and contexts, this implies or requires that both these aspects of the learners are understood and that appropriate accommodation is made. Nicoll, however, points to the contradictions or challenges which the accommodation to learners’ interests requires (Nicoll 1997). She argues that the emergence of flexibility has contributed to ‘unsettling practices’. Drawing on the work of Foucault, Nicoll argues that ‘As flexible learning acts to open up institutions to local knowledges, discourses outside the institution take an increasing role in the formation [of] new knowledges and … pedagogies’ (Nicoll 1997: 107). At first glance, moves to flexible learning appear to be uncontentious, especially within the framework of the current social and economic ideologies – this is not to say that these are not contentious! However, it is arguable that the further institutions move along the path to accommodating learners’ needs, interests and contexts, then the more likely it is that what (some) individual learners advocate for themselves will become quite ‘unsettling’ for those whose job it is to be concerned for educational standards and institutional budgets. For example, if flexible delivery of a course means focusing on a learner’s need to be able to undertake their course in the workplace and/or at home, or to have the course and its assessment recognise the particularities of their workplace, then this would seem quite appropriate. If, however, it means providing personal face-to-face tuition on demand, at a place of their choice, on a topic they decided and assessed, then such flexible delivery is likely to be a most ‘unsettling practice’ for those who value, practise and manage education and training in its current forms. Clearly, flexible delivery has to be operated within certain parameters. These parameters are shaped by the social and economic circumstances of the nation, the institution and the workplace, in addition to the educational and training structures and practices that have prevailed historically. If the shift to flexible delivery is more than a rhetorical label, then a certain amount of ‘flexing’ of course delivery needs to be done with the learners in mind. To a degree this is a policy matter at government, institution and company levels; it therefore follows that it becomes a matter of (changing) practice. However, the flexibility to learners’ needs, interests and contexts does need to be framed and valued within the particular policy framework. The parameters need to be set as to what degrees and levels of flexibility will be accommodated in order to create and sustain quality (flexible) educational and training provision. Within this policy framework explicit requirements are necessary for explicitly

222 Terry Evans obtaining and appropriately incorporating learners’ needs, interests and contexts. It is important to research the (prospective) learners in a systematic way so that courses, teaching and administration can be ‘flexed’ to accommodate the learners within the policy framework. This explicit step of deliberately and systematically researching the learners in order to accommodate them into educational programmes is an important element of flexibility. In order to be flexible it is essential that institutions, training organisations and teachers know what is required by the learners as well as what is within their capacity to deliver. A systematic approach to this sort of applied research is one which can be strategically organised to be representative of the array of intended students the organisation is addressing. Once this is done, routine course evaluation is likely to sustain the understanding of the learners, at least until significant changes are evident. Once courses are appropriately flexible to the intended (and actual) learners, then the courses will have the effect of ‘constructing’ new and expanding numbers of flexible learners. The availability of flexible courses – if they are appropriately structured, administered, designed and implemented – will attract and ‘construct’ a broader constituency of learners who begin to see themselves as flexible learners. This also raises the matter of the extent to which education and training organisations need to teach people to be flexible learners, and this is precisely Robin Usher’s theme in the following chapter. In the same way as it is an important change in the nature and practices of organisations which move to flexible delivery, then also it can be expected that an important change is required of learners if they are to succeed and extract the most benefit from their courses. In this way, flexible learners are partly constructed deliberately through the course itself, and/or though forms of learner support provided in the organisation. One can anticipate that novice flexible learners – many of whom may well be from socially and economically disadvantaged sectors of the community – will need to be assisted on matters such as planning and preparing time and space for study, using learning materials and working with computer-mediated means of learning and interaction. In this respect, the flexible learning organisation is not only responding in terms of the flexible delivery and administration of courses but also in terms of teaching about becoming a flexible learner.

Conclusion The notion of the ‘flexible learner’ is one which is relatively unexplored and uncontested in both the field and the literature. This chapter has

Developing flexible learners? 223 provided an exploration of the term, both conceptually and practically, in terms of students’ learning. It argues the case that flexible delivery requires flexibility in teaching or training as a necessary precondition for flexible learning. This precondition requires that particular values and practices be adopted by education and training organisations – be they in or through an educational institution or in human resource development agencies in the workplace – that reflect flexibility in terms of curriculum, pedagogy, delivery and administration. However, these values need to be enacted through practices that specifically recognise and engage with the diversity of learners’ needs and contexts. This suggests that appropriate policy, research and development are required to explain and inculcate the values and, more particularly, to shape and foster the necessary practices. Having adopted such values and the consequent practices, the issue of the flexibility with which learning is actually undertaken is posed. It is suggested that learners require assistance to begin to learn flexibly and/or to maximise the benefits they can derive from learning flexibly. Hence, teaching to learn flexibly is an important element of flexible learning programmes. In essence, this chapter discusses the implications of taking the rhetoric of flexible learning and turning it into practice. The argument is that to be flexible requires explicitly understanding learners’ needs, interests and contexts and then responding appropriately at the policy, administration and teaching levels. Whether in the world of work or education, the costs of ignoring or avoiding such an understanding are likely to be serious, either in terms of profitability or educational effectiveness.

Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments made by Peter Smith and an anonymous reviewer on an earlier draft of this chapter.

References Campion, M. (1992) ‘Revealing links: post-Fordism, postmodernism and distance education’, in T.D. Evans and P.A. Juler (eds) Research in Distance Education 2, Geelong: Deakin University Press. Campion, M. and Renner, W. (1991) ‘The supposed demise of Fordism: implications for distance education and higher education’, Distance Education, 13, 1: 7–28. Creech, W. (1997) A Future Education Policy For New Zealand: Tertiary Education Review, Green Paper, Wellington: Ministry of Education.

224 Terry Evans Daniel, J. (1996) The Mega-Universities and the Knowledge Media, London: Kogan Page. Edwards, R. (1997) Changing Places? Flexibility, lifelong learning and a learning society, London: Routledge. Evans, T.D. (1994) Understanding Learners in Open and Distance Education, London: Kogan Page. —— (1995) ‘Globalisation, post-Fordism and open and distance education’, Distance Education, 16, 3: 256–269. —— (1997) ‘(En)Countering globalisation: issues for open and distance educators’, in L. Rowan, L. Bartlett and T.D. Evans (eds) Shifting Borders: Globalisation, Localisation and Open and Distance Education, Geelong: Deakin University Press. Evans, T.D. and Nation, D.E. (1987) ‘Which future for distance education?’, International Council for Distance Education Bulletin, 14: 48–53. —— (1989) ‘Dialogue in practice, research and theory in distance education’, Open Learning, 4, 2: 37–43. Harris, D. (1987) Openness and Closure in Distance Education, Barcombe: The Falmer Press. Jakupec, V. (1997) ‘Guest editorial’, Studies in Continuing Education, 19, 2: 95–99. Kirkpatrick, D. (1997) ‘Becoming flexible: contested territory’, Studies in Continuing Education, 19, 2: 160–173. Nicoll, K. (1997) ‘Flexible learning – unsettling practices’, Studies in Continuing Education, 19, 2: 100–111. Panda, S. (1996) ‘Translating open university policies into practice in India’, in T.D. Evans and D.E. Nation (eds) Opening Education: Policies and Practices from Open and Distance Education, London: Routledge. Peters, O. (1983) ‘Distance teaching and industrial production: a comparative interpretation in outline’, in D. Sewart, D. Keegan and B. Holmberg (eds) Distance Education: International Perspectives, London: Croom Helm. —— (1989) ‘The iceberg has not melted: further reflections of the concept of industrialisation and distance teaching’, Open Learning, 4, 3: 3–8. Rumble, G. (1992) ‘The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching universities’, Open Learning, 7, 2: 31–45. ——(1995). ‘Labour market theories and distance education II: how Fordist is distance education’, Open Learning, 10, 2: 12–28. Smith, P.J. (1998) Knowledge Construction Through Flexible Delivery in the Workplace, Brisbane: Open Learning. —— and Lindner, C. (1986) Learning Style Preferences of Technical and Further Education Students, and Delivery Methods in Selected Teaching Programs, Melbourne: Office of the TAFE Board.

13 Flexible learning, postmodernity and the contemporary workplace Robin Usher

As the previous chapters in this book clearly show, there are many possible ways of understanding ‘flexible learning’. This ‘flexibility’ normally refers to curriculum, pedagogy and the organisation and delivery of educational provision. My concern however in this chapter is not to add to the definitions and possibilities or to further describe the variety of practices that are subsumed by the term ‘flexible learning’. My problematic rather is to do with what kind of ‘unspoken’ learning flexible learning involves – or to put it another way, it is about the hidden curriculum of flexible learning – specifically, the relationship, a necessary one, between ‘flexible learning’ and ‘learning flexibility’. I am going to argue that this is a problematic which has been given little or no analytical attention so far in the literature of flexible learning. There is a need therefore to look more closely at how flexible learning is also a means of learning ‘flexibility’ and at what in particular the implications of this are for the contemporary workplace and for the fast growing numbers of learners located in that site, all busy learning flexibly. To engage in this exercise we do need to be clear about the differences as well as the relationship between flexible learning and learning flexibility. Whilst the phenomena they describe are closely related, there is here a significant difference between them, particularly in thinking about the nature of contemporary workplaces as sites of learning and the changing role of universities, now heavily involved in providing flexible learning, in relation to these sites.

Flexible learning and the contemporary workplace I will start by locating both flexible learning and learning flexibility in the common context of the postmodern condition where ‘flexibility’ is a key metaphor potently vivifying a variety of contemporary

226 Robin Usher life discourses. Here, as the previous chapter has done, I would also highlight the socio-economic and cultural context that results from and supports globalisation, competitive world markets, space–time compression and ‘imagised’ information-saturated cultures – a context within which are implicated interlinking discourses of flexible organisations, flexible workers and a consequent perceived need for flexible structures, modes and contents of learning to service these organisations and workers. As capital becomes more globalised and national economies increasingly integrated on a global basis, flexibility becomes both a key goal in, and a key means of, maintaining and increasing economic competitiveness. Organisations are expected to respond flexibly (i.e. rapidly) to market changes, with a premium placed on the need for flexibility within and between workplaces. Given this context, flexible learning is seen therefore as both a condition of, and as contributing, at one level, to changes in the social and economic division of labour and the organisation and management of work, production and culture in the workplace and, at another level, to the educational provision considered appropriate to these changes and demanded by state perceptions of what is required for economic competitiveness in conditions of globalised capital. The current significance of flexible learning has to be seen in relation to a situation where universities and other state-funded educational and training institutions, because of the impact of globalisation and its related effects and associations, coupled with financial cutbacks and government-inspired discourses of market control and economic rationality, are increasingly having to redefine their mission, their rationale, their curricula, their pedagogy and delivery systems in the search for new partners, new markets and ‘clients’. There is now a widespread recognition, even within universities, that educational institutions are neither the only nor perhaps any longer the principal places in which learning occurs. Furthermore, universities are finding that the need to compete in both global and local markets requires them to respond flexibly with provision that is responsive to these markets. What constitutes ‘education’ is therefore itself being reconfigured in the direction of greater flexibility – or, to put it another way, in contemporary conditions flexible learning is the answer to the situation where flexible capital specialisation meets the inflexible knowledge of the academy. Globalisation and new information/communications technologies (ICTs) have helped to bring about a new transnational ethics of performativity centred on efficiency, competitiveness and technological ‘know-how’. Workplace

Flexible learning and the workplace 227 training is beginning to displace the national norms of civic bildung enshrined in pre-informational modes of education (see Luke 1996) in order that the educational system may be seen to be contributing tangibly and directly to the formation of a productive workforce. As well as socio-economic and technological changes, the significance of changes in the cultural climate must also be noted. These, to a large extent, are both the cause and outcome of postmodernism as a generalised social consciousness that involves the undermining of foundations, centres of authority and canonical knowledge and their replacement by more decentred forms of social and economic organisation (Lemert 1997). These changes have stimulated a celebration of diversity and difference as well as an acute consciousness of change and the consequent need to be ‘flexible’ in the sense of adaptable in uncertain and troubled times. This has further contributed to the breakdown of the university’s monopoly of knowledge legitimation and a consciousness that the university is no longer the only or principal site in which learning occurs. Traditional and inflexible knowledge canons and pedagogies are challenged and increasingly displaced by flexible learning in line with the flexibility in labour processes, markets, products and patterns of consumption that characterise the post-Fordist processes of flexible capital accumulation mentioned earlier. The simultaneous continuous and rapid change in both the higher education sector and in contemporary workplaces – the latter now recognised as sites of learning and knowledge production – is both an outcome and a reinforcement of a perceived urgency for continuous adaptation and flexible approaches to learning. Workplace-based learning, for example, can be aptly understood as an instance of flexible learning, but the latter can also be seen as emerging through the growth of the former. Thus we can characterise the contemporary situation with regard to ‘learning’, increasingly and significantly seen as the term preferred to ‘education’, as manifesting not only a flexibility in learning but also a flexibility of ‘learning’ – a flexibility in terms of what is learnt and how it is learnt within a reconfiguration of traditional educational principles of discipline-based curricula, canonical texts, courses with fixed beginnings and ends, and face-to-face teaching. The changes which have led to a foregrounding of flexible learning in both these senses need to be distinguished, initially at least, from ‘learning flexibility’ which, although closely related, I am arguing is bound up with another and perhaps not so obvious dimension of learning in the contemporary workplace, namely the management of subjectivity. As mentioned earlier, to speak of

228 Robin Usher learning flexibility is to speak of the ‘hidden curriculum’ of flexible learning, particularly in relation to the contemporary workplace as a site of learning. My argument is that the contemporary workplace is a site not only of new forms of organising production and work management but also a site both for learning and for the shaping of the subjectivity of employees – and I am arguing that it is all of these simultaneously. This shaping of subjectivity is intimately linked to concepts and practices of lifelong learning through the way these foreground the positive relationship of learning to change and development at both organisational and individual levels. As Garrick (1998) points out, learning has now become a technology of success. Discourses of workplace reform and pedagogies of human resource development (HRD), coupled with notions of the learning oganisation, have played an important part here by providing a rationale for lifelong learning, constructing it as a means for organisations to remain competitive and sustain themselves in changing and risky times. Many commentators (e.g. du Gay 1996, Rose 1989 and 1996; Miller and Rose 1990) have emphasised how post-Fordist restructurings of the workplace have created a need for employees who can be self-developing, self-motivating and self-regulating. They argue, as does Evans in Chapter Twelve, that in this context it is the management of subjectivity that is now more than ever before the central task for organisations. As du Gay (1996) points out, employees have been constructed as particular kinds of subjects through positioning in discourses of workplace reform centred around notions of human resource development. These discourses have constructed the employee as a lifelong learner – as someone who needs to be an actively wanting, thinking, feeling and doing being, who will regard personal objectives as congruent with the objectives of the organisation, who will align her/his desires with organisational advancement, who will seek continually to adapt to its changing needs – and who therefore is sufficiently flexible and with the capacity to regulate themselves. Employees are constructed both as active learners and as self-regulating subjects – each the condition of the other and always found together. Here we are reminded of Foucault (1977, 1980), who spoke of contemporary governmentality as a disciplining into a freely accepted particular form of life through the ‘shaping’ of subjectivity that involves the ‘educating’ or ‘teaching’ of individuals who would otherwise remain unorganised, or inappropriately organised, and therefore economically unproductive. It is in this way that learning becomes a

Flexible learning and the workplace 229 technology of success. Both in its broadest sense and through a particular concrete form such as flexible learning, learning becomes the preferred means both of empowerment and regulation in a culture with values that frown on disciplining through force or coercion. Rose (1989), in developing this notion of a non-coercive ‘pastoral power’, argues that governmentality in the contemporary workplace works through infiltrating regulation into the very interior of the experience of subjects – a process that involves subjects ‘educating’ themselves into accepting, valuing and working to achieve the congruence of personal and organisational objectives – a process where subjective experiences are simultaneously shaped and yet paradoxically remain uniquely one’s own (Ransom 1997). With subjectivity shaped through the contemporary discourses of workplace reform, what emerges is not a monolithic totally determined subjectivity but a contingent subjectivity, one that is always contested and always ‘in process’ such that the ‘shaping’ is never final and definitive. However, the important thing here is not the degree of determination but the very stimulation of subjectivity with its knowing and managing of the self and its emphasis on self-originating self-change. This stimulation of subjectivity creates subjects who seek to maximise their capacities in the workplace and with dispositions appropriate to maximising productivity. This stimulation shapes employees as subjects free to choose, who consider their lives worthwhile to the extent that they can choose that which makes for self-enhancement and self-realisation – in other words, active subjects: subjects of autonomy equipped with a psychology aspiring to self-fulfilment and actually or potentially running their lives as a kind of enterprise of themselves. (Rose 1996: 139) What’s constructed therefore is an enterprising relationship to self, a developing of qualities of autonomy, self-management and personal responsibility. Through the managerial discourse of ‘excellence’, technologies of work (power) and technologies of the self (subjectivity) become aligned with technologies of success (motivation and enterprise) such that ‘the government of work now passes through the psychological strivings of each and every individual for self-fulfilment’ (Miller and Rose 1990: 27). The discourse of excellence links and aligns the organisationally desirable (more productivity, flexible working, increased efficiency and profitability) with the personally desirable (greater self-fulfilment).

230 Robin Usher Here we need also to note the significance of the emphasis on ‘culture’ in contemporary discourses and practices of workplace reform. Culture, along with subjectivity, now occupies centre-stage in the workplace. It is seen as structuring the way subjects think, make decisions and act and as the source of norms, attitudes and values – the patterns of meaning, understandings and beliefs through which subjects construct their experience and forge their sense of identity. This emphasis on organisational culture is the way in which subjectivity is foregrounded and stimulated – culture itself now being seen as a crucial determinant of organisational success and thus an ‘object’ to be developed and shaped in the workplace (du Gay 1996). Through working on organisational culture, the discourses and practices of workplace reform have restructured the workplace with the aim of making work more subjectively meaningful and more personally fulfilling – as a source of identity, an aspect of which is to construct the self as a source of learning, meaningful and essential to self-fulfilment. Restructuring centred on cultural change and the development of a ‘learning organisation’ therefore becomes a way of effectively shaping a self-managing subjectivity in the condition of post-Fordist flexible modernisation or the ‘dislocated’ capitalism that characterises postmodernity.

Subjectivity and learning flexibility At this point we can begin to make some connections between the contemporary management of subjectivity in the workplace and the development of workplace-based learning accreditation practices which are themselves more aptly understood as an instance or concretisation of flexible learning. In relation to my discussion so far, the accreditation of workplace-based learning can be seen as an important means by which the enterprising self can be enterprising, seeking betterment and fulfilment in a way which is both personally and organisationally effective. Workplace-based learning becomes an indicator both of successful self-management and a culturally sanctioned way in which subjects in restructured workplaces can make a ‘project of themselves’ and at the same time add value to the organisation. The growth in significance of this practice is a mark of the now increasingly acceptable notion that learning is not a function purely of location in an institutional site of education. Given the contemporary financial and cultural climate, it has become impossible for universities, much as they might like to, to resist acceptance of this any longer. But furthermore, workplace-based learning is not an

Flexible learning and the workplace 231 ‘education’ in any traditionally understood curricular and pedagogical sense. The university literally comes to the workplace with employees becoming ‘students’ but located in that site and perhaps never going anywhere near a university location. This therefore is an education ‘located’, both in a physical and a curricular sense, in the workplace. Work rather than disciplinary knowledge becomes the curriculum shaping the programme of study, with the goal of studies becoming the development of the skills and knowledge required in the workplace (Boud 1997) – skills and knowledge which are themselves regarded as flexible. As Barnett (1997) points out, the recognition that learning can take place at work, that workplace-based knowledge is legitimate, signals a shift from theoretical (disciplinary) knowledge to problembased ‘know-how’, with the latter now accepted not simply as informal or ‘working’ knowledge but as legitimate knowledge that can therefore be accredited. This kind of knowledge is characterised by learning outcomes that are performance-related rather than timerelated, with pedagogy becoming more experiential and situationally specific, and content flowing from productivity and work requirements rather than ‘subjects’ or disciplines – and it is perhaps worth noting in passing that discipline-based knowledge is also becoming more flexible, perhaps as a result of the influence of these trends. Here we can also note the argument about new modes of knowledge production put forward by Gibbons et al. (1994). They distinguish between two modes of knowledge production – Mode 1 and Mode 2. This distinction equates roughly to what Luke (1996: 7–10) describes as ‘culturally concentrated knowledge’ and ‘socially distributed knowledge’. Mode 1 knowledge is: produced on a campus by academic researchers in clearly demarcated scholarly disciplines to be transmitted first, to students in accredited degree programs or second, to clients in government, industry, or non-profit organisations through sponsored research contracts. (Luke 1996: 7) Mode 1 knowledge production is therefore disciplinary knowledge legitimated by a disciplinary community oriented to knowledge accumulation. Mode 2 knowledge, on the other hand, is an ‘emergent gridwork of intellectual products increasingly produced and consumed outside of traditional university settings’ (Luke 1996: 7). Although Mode 2, or socially distributed knowledge, is not

232 Robin Usher exactly a new way of producing knowledge, it is becoming increasingly prevalent and taking its place in significance alongside the traditional and hitherto dominant Mode 1, or culturally concentrated, knowledge. Mode 2 knowledge production has the characteristic that it is produced in the context of application – i.e. it is knowledge produced because it is useful in a contemporary situation where the sources of supply and demand for different kinds of specialised knowledge are diverse and many, and where the market process defines significant contexts of application (Garrick examines this issue in further detail in the next chapter). The emphasis on this context of use or application means that knowledge both arises from and is in the service of the problem-solving required in that specific context. Mode 2 can thus be seen as producing knowledge that is inherently flexible in the sense that it is problem-solving in form and orientation, specific to the context of application (the next problem will be different because the context will be different), transient and eminently commodifiable. The legitimacy of this kind of knowledge is not determined by the academy but by a wider set of criteria than those defined by the interests of a discipline and its gatekeepers since social, economic and political criteria also come into play. All of these are features which are absent in more ‘inflexible’ Mode 1 knowledge. The characteristics of Mode 2 knowledge production have certain implications and raise a number of important issues. First, the ‘massification’ of higher education, with consequent increases in the output of graduates, has led to more and more people becoming familiar with and competent in knowledge-production processes – it is no longer an activity that a select group of academics can reserve for themselves. With the parallel growth of ‘knowledge’ industries many now work in ways which incorporate a research dimension but where the worksite is no longer the university – although this situation is not confined exclusively to these industries. This in itself creates a demand for learning – for new and updated skills and knowledge – related to the worksite and flexibly provided. Second, there has been an expansion in the demand for certain kinds of specialised knowledge – increasingly a critical factor in determining an organisation’s comparative advantage. However, this specialised knowledge is ‘difficult and often too expensive for individual firms to replicate in house… to meet this exigency firms have become involved in a complex array of collaborative arrangements’ (Luke 1996: 13) – collaborations which very often but not necessarily always involve universities. Furthermore, this demand is not purely commercial or located only in industry – it also originates in

Flexible learning and the workplace 233 what Gibbons et al. describe as new markets for knowledge and expertise or ‘hybrid fora’, meeting points for a diverse range of actors. Examples of hybrid fora are public enquiries, governmental commissions and ‘a whole spectrum of institutions, interest groups and individuals who need to know more about particular matters’ (Luke 1996: 12). The knowledge required here therefore is one that has to be ‘flexible’ in the sense of relevant, readily available and accessible. Globalisation and flexible capital accumulation depend upon the ability of the workforce to reconfigure and deploy knowledge. From the viewpoint of the organisation, workplace-based learning awards offer many advantages in relation to this environment. In globalised conditions and with competitive markets, organisations regard the capacity of labour to process information and generate socially distributed knowledge as the most vital source of productivity (Luke 1996). Furthermore, in the contemporary environment, technological innovation becomes the key to keeping ahead – and technological innovation requires new and specialised knowledge, flexibly derived and flexibly applied. All this is extremely costly and in a highly competitive environment it is unlikely that organisations can go it alone. In-house knowledge production is now therefore beyond the reach of most, hence the growth of risk and cost-sharing schemes taking the form of R&D alliances, outsourcing and network firms, and the growth of firms trading in specialised knowledge (the socalled ‘knowledge industry’ of small value-adding firms who reconfigure knowledge and offer it for sale – in effect, purveyors of flexible knowledge, flexibly delivered). The kind of knowledge needed to keep ahead is located in Mode 2 knowledge production, a knowledge geared to the identification and solution of specific problems. The demand for this knowledge also requires the sophisticated means of communication provided by ICTs. The new information technology and its associated computer-mediated communication with its global scope provides the means for the necessary and quick access to knowledge production which itself is now global in its incidence. All this is both a response and a contributor to a perceived need for a ‘knowledgeable’ workforce, with the well-developed reskilling and relearning capacities that are now considered necessary for high productivity and flexible niche production. In post-Fordist work environments, fixed hierarchies, direct supervision and repetitive tasks requiring routinised skills are seen as unproductive and inefficient, needing to be replaced by teamwork, self-management and

234 Robin Usher higher-order generic skills that can work with Mode 2 knowledge in an ICT-rich environment. All this is seen as requiring an ‘educated’ workforce but where ‘education’ encompasses not only the learning of skills but the learning of ‘right’ attitudes, dispositions and inclinations – and where ‘right’ in this context invariably means ‘flexible’. The instrumentality and ‘relevance’ of workplace-based learning awards ensures, both for the organisation and its employees, that what is learnt can be argued to be ‘adding value’ in a direct and tangible way. With the replacement of what constitutes legitimate knowledge from that constituted by disciplines and therefore outside the control of the organisation (culturally concentrated knowledge) to that constituted by performance agreements and production requirements, and therefore within its control (socially distributed knowledge), the organisation can also ensure not only that the ‘right’ things are learnt but also that it retains a considerable degree of control of the learning process by having clear, concise and consistent measures of what is being learnt. In turn, this is reinforced by the significant dependence of workplace-based learning assessments on industry-set competencies and matrices of capability statements, although it is perhaps worth noting that there is a certain paradox in this inflexible dependence on inflexible learning outcomes. None the less, for those in the workplace these developments mean a flexible ‘education’ and a flexibility in the mode of learning (certainly in comparison to the average university student) which makes what they are doing appear relevant and authentic, more closely related to their workplace needs and situation, and ‘empowering’ in a way that enables them to be both more skilled and knowledgeable and more autonomous and self-directing – better workers and better selves, simultaneously helping their organisations and themselves in their current and future work. But whilst I would not in any way wish to downplay the empowering elements in this situation, it is necessary however to point also to the increased potential for surveillance and regulation which all this makes possible. In effect, there is then another side to these developments which should not be ignored. I would argue that the growth of workplace-based learning practices can be seen not simply as empowerment but perhaps more as a form of ‘seduction’ at work and by work, a seduction through empowerment. One consequence of this is that issues of power and ‘discipline’ (in the sense both of control and of bodies of knowledge) no longer seem so visible and relevant, although it would be a mistake to assume that they have disappeared or are irrelevant.

Flexible learning and the workplace 235 Clearly, there are panoptical characteristics in this situation. However, it would be simplistic to see the role of workplace-based learning and awards as an instrument purely of oppression or manipulation on the part of management. The partnership of organisations and higher education institutions makes this a complex and tensionfilled form of surveillance and regulation. Both the university and the workplace ‘speak’ in terms of power–knowledge discourses which in the context of the practices of workplace-based learning are sometimes congruent but often are not. Hence the shaping of subjectivity is a fraught, tension-filled and often contradictory process. Learners want their learning in the workplace to have the same unequivocal status of a university-based degree whilst at the same time wanting it to enhance their job prospects and career development – they don’t want their degrees to be ‘flexible’ to the point of worthlessness! Here then is the ambivalence that neatly illustrates the problems of identity and subjectivity with which the employee as learner is now continually having to engage. The learning practices exemplify the fact that surveillance and self-regulation, which are realities in the contemporary workplace, are not straightforward matters. As we have seen, discourses of workplace reform and the practices of workplace learning have significantly contributed to bringing together the personal and the organisational in such a way that individual workers associate their own development with the goals of the organisation. The key to this identification and the self-regulation which it simultaneously enables is that of ‘flexibility’. This then is the wider sense of ‘flexible learning’, that of learning flexibility, which I have been arguing for – a sense that foregrounds the ‘unspoken’ dimension to learning in workplace learning, a hidden curriculum where what is learnt in the flexible learning of the contemporary workplace is flexibility itself – a set of values and attitudes which stress adaptability, continual modification and an acceptance of fluidity and uncertainty as a permanent condition of subjectivity. There is however another aspect to this which is worth a brief mention. So far I have been talking of flexibility in the workplace – of flexible learning as a way of learning that is both responsive to the particular and diverse needs and contexts of employees-as-learners and takes their work situation as the curriculum. I have also argued that there is another curriculum at work, one which is concerned with the learning of flexibility and the self-regulation which this enables in the shaping of subjectivity. Now although I have also mentioned the place of universities and their response in relation to the accreditation of workplace-based learning, I have as yet said

236 Robin Usher nothing to explore Nunan’s point in Chapter Four: about how universities are themselves being forced to be flexible. Universities, for financial and managerial as well as educational reasons, are increasingly engaging in collaborative arrangements with non-educational organisations, a trend that is now increasing with the significance of Mode 2 knowledge. In this situation, universities have been forced to find new and different ways of legitimating knowledge and accrediting new types and sources of learning. They too have to act flexibly, particularly in the context of accrediting workplace learning where traditional categories and classifications based on the authority of disciplines and disciplinary communities no longer seem so relevant. Furthermore what accompanies this move towards the flexible university that provides flexible learning is a pressure on academics to themselves learn flexibility – to become flexible. The university is, and is finally recognising itself as, a workplace in its own right and like any contemporary workplace what takes place there is a shaping of subjectivity – a shaping which simultaneously produces both active and self-regulated subjects. Of course, the shaping of the subjectivity of academics is nothing new, but what is new is the form this is now taking. In learning flexibility, academics are coming to recognise that they will not be the sole determiners of curriculum content and delivery, that campus-based teaching may possibly become largely superseded, and that curricula will need to encompass a range of approaches to suit a diversity of learners. Disciplinary boundaries seem no longer to have the defining power they once did; membership of a disciplinary community is no longer quite so significant. Now whilst this does indeed involve learning flexibility in a very concrete sense, what is perhaps most important for our purposes in this chapter is that academics, like other contemporary workers, are also subject to a kind of hidden curriculum. Flexible learning has its effects on those who purvey it as well as those who receive it.

Conclusions – ethical issues? I come back to where I started, namely the postmodern condition, a condition that exhibits a fundamental tension. It can be characterised as a liminal state wherein are combined elements of performativity and regulation with elements of openness, diversity and active biographical self-construction. Subjects are both active and acted on, and nowhere is this more evident than in the ‘postmodern’ workplace. There, learning is both open and closed, the ‘curriculum’ is

Flexible learning and the workplace 237 both disciplining and without discipline(s). Flexible learning can itself be understood both as a process of biographical self-construction (Edwards 1998) and, through the learning of flexibility, as a process of surveillance through self-regulation, simultaneously empowering and disempowering. The simultaneous existence of these conflicting and seemingly contradictory elements suggests therefore that there is an ethical dimension to flexible learning which is rarely, if ever, highlighted. Here we need to remind ourselves that ‘flexible’ has yet other meanings – it means ‘adaptable’ and ‘capable of modification’ but also ‘easily bent’ and ‘willing or disposed to yield’. There is a fine dividing line between the active subject and the acted-upon subject, and ethical questions are inevitably raised in situations where personal and organisational goals are seemingly so smoothly elided and where knowledge is apparently so easily commodified and readily disposable. These ethical questions are ones which educators concerned with the curricular and pedagogical issues raised by flexible learning cannot afford to ignore in their enthusiasm for new modes of provision and delivery, new sites of learning, and new markets and ‘clients’.

References Barnett, R. (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business, Buckingham: Open University Press. Boud, D. (1997) ‘Providing for lifelong learning through work-based study: challenges for practice and policy’, paper presented at the international conference Lifelong Learning: Reality, Rhetoric and Public Policy, University of Surrey, UK. Boud, D. and Miller, N. (eds) (1996) Working with Experience: Animated Learning, London and New York: Routledge. du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work, London: Sage Publications. Edwards, R. (1998) ‘Mapping, locating and translating: a discursive approach to professional development’, Studies in Continuing Education, 20, 1: 23–38. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage. —— (1980) Power/ Knowledge, New York: Pantheon. Garrick, J. (1998) Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human Resource Development, London and New York: Routledge. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production Of Knowledge: The Dynamics Of Science And Research In Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.

238 Robin Usher Leitch, V.B. (1996) Postmodernism: Local Effects, Global Flows, Albany: SUNY Press. Lemert, C. (1997) Postmodernism Is Not What You Think, Oxford: Blackwell. Luke, T.W. (1996) ‘The politics of cyberschooling at the virtual university’, paper presented at the international conference The Virtual University, University of Melbourne, Australia. Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990) ‘Governing economic life’, Economy and Society 19, 1 (February). Ransom, J.S. (1997) Foucault’s Discipline: The Politics of Subjectivity, London: Duke University Press. Rose, N. (1996) ‘Identity, geneology, history’, in S. Hall, and P. du Gay (eds) Questions of Cultural Identity, London: Sage Publications. —— (1989)Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, London: Routledge.

14 Flexible learning, work and the management of ‘intellectual’ capital John Garrick

Work-based learning Postindustrial, information and knowledge-based economies are constructed by the rapid spread of new technologies, new and dynamic forms of work organisation and divisions of labour. In such contexts, higher education and understandings of what constitutes ‘valid’ learning are also transformed. The transformation includes increasing demands by enterprises for flexible approaches to education and concurrent discourses of ‘lifelong’ and ‘experience-based’ learning which locate education as directly work related. In these discourses, work can constitute the curriculum. The education and training system is, in this case, shaped by market needs; education becomes a function of its economic profitability, which in turn is related to the higher skill requirements of the economy. This then foregrounds a human capital theorisation of flexible work-based learning that is based on the correlation between levels of learning and productivity. Lyotard (1984) refers to this as a ‘mercantilisation of knowledge’, in which any excess of skill supply will result in diminishing returns (wages, unemployment) and subsequently lead to a decrease in the individual demand for education (Tessaring 1998: 56). This chapter argues that it is human capital theory which has become the principal justification for the promotion of flexible workplace-based approaches to learning and contends that work-based learning is embedded in financial thinking – offering organisations a convenient new tool in the management of intellectual capital. Work-based learning and ‘intellectual capital’ are products of their time and cannot be understood in isolation from their historical context. The focus on learning and on capital are not always easily reconciled and can result in goals that are not as compatible as they might appear on the surface. Indeed, for universities, work-based

240 John Garrick learning is not without its contradictions and paradoxes. On the one hand it has the potential to generate some much needed cash for universities’ survival – it is a creature of high capital. On the other hand it offers possibilities for learning and for learner/worker ‘empowerment’ other than those we have known through earlier concepts and approaches, including competency-based ‘skills’ training, human resource development and the ‘learning organisation’. The main paradox is that learning at work can simultaneously ‘empower’ and ‘disempower’. In contexts of rapid change and complexity there will always be powerful gatekeepers ready to utilise all the tools at their disposal, including work-based learning and learner assessment procedures, to produce their desired outcomes – often in measurable (and image-conscious) ways. In the sections that follow, I shall first explore the notion of intellectual capital and its connection with workplace-based learning. This connection includes managerial expectations of workers to adopt and implement the innovations believed to generate organisational sustainability and competitive advantage – including ‘capacity building’. Second, I will examine some of the theoretical bases of capacity building and link these to actual practices of work-based learning. Third, I will briefly examine some of the effects of the specific uses of language identified with flexibility in learning: namely, the management of intellectual (and cultural) capital, human resource development and its instruments such as capability statements, performance enhancement systems, ‘leadership’ training and, more recently, sustainability. The ‘worker/learner’ and approaches to work-based learning One of the innovations sweeping through higher education institutions and workplaces is the promotion of ‘flexible’ approaches to learning. This innovation includes both a drive to prepare students for the workplace and a recognition that ‘valid’ learning occurs in the workplace itself. Work-based learning has become a critical dimension of ‘flexible’ learning, and it is this learning that is the main focus of this chapter. Indeed, a great deal of attention has recently focused on the development of subjects and degree programmes that are entirely workplace-based. Such programmes are negotiated with organisations to meet their own learning needs and promote the learning of individual company employees in the performance of their everyday work. In most instances it is the desire to build new

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 241 ‘capacities’ in their labour force that is fuelling employer demand for greater flexibility and autonomy in organisational learning programmes. The idea of workplace-based courses has grown not only in response to this demand but also as a consequence of restricted government funding for higher education and the need for universities to appeal to new markets. Such pressures are generating considerable tensions between traditional academic practice and beliefs, and those that accompany the ‘flexible’ new approaches to learning in and through work. Given the disputed and increasingly ‘globalised’ character of contemporary society there can be no straightforward account of the flexible new offerings in education and at work. But degree programmes based on learning in and through the workplace are becoming a part of the academy’s ‘business’ (Garrick and Kirkpatrick 1998: 171). The emergence of such courses is accompanied by critical issues that have no easy responses or simplistic solutions. Although completely workplace-based award courses developed for organisations are in their infancy, I am using them here to illustrate some tensions likely to arise from the promotion and implementation of this aspect of flexible delivery systems. In examining these tensions I shall speculate on the uses of work-based learning to enhance worker performance and capacity-building ‘techniques’; this is surely one of the principal reasons that organisations and their managerial elites are clamouring for ‘worker/learners’. We are most certainly witnessing momentous changes in what counts as knowledge and knowing in society. Usher and Edwards (1994) call this ‘the postmodern moment’. Others describe it as a shift from theoretical knowledge to applied and problem-based knowledge (Gibbons et al. 1994). Work-based learning degrees do symbolise a shift in emphasis from theoretical knowledge to problem-based ‘know-how’. As society grapples with increasing and complex change, as economies struggle to maintain competitiveness, knowing about the world gives way to practical ‘know-how’. This is no less than ‘a fundamental shift in our social epistemology’ (Barnett 1997a: 37). The point here is that work-based learning ‘programmes’ are reflecting this change. It is a change that presents universities with a range of critical challenges and it may help to delineate some of the emerging tensions embedded within work-based learning discourses and advance some suggestions for easing these tensions. There are multiple representations of work-based learning. Some are informed by theories of learning in the field of adult education that relate to reflection-in-action, critical reflection, experiential learning

242 John Garrick and self-directed learning. Others emanate from the field of cognitive psychology including ‘situated cognition’ (Lave and Wenger 1991). These theories address the learning that typically occurs by the worker in his or her workplace and seek to explain how students learn in ‘authentic’ workplace situations. There is also coverage of this topic in the diverse literature of organisational and management development (Senge 1994), human resource development (Marsick and Watkins 1997), feminism (Lather 1991; Probert 1999), poststructuralism (Usher and Edwards 1994; Parker 1998), work sociology and postindustrial psychology (Casey 1995). Of course, there are no agreements on the meanings and implications of work-based learning. Garrick and Kirkpatrick (1998: 173) have pointed out that universities have, for many years, developed programmes that capitalise on the learning taking place in workplace contexts including practicebased education, work-based learning and cooperative education approaches. These approaches are described briefly below: Practice-based education aims to prepare students for professional practice using: a curriculum that focuses on problems that occur in practice; examples taken from practice; assessment which applies learning to practice-based problems; and structured student experience in clinical, practicum and other authentic settings. In this approach, the university has primary control of the curriculum. This approach may incorporate recognition of prior learning but this tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Cooperative education is exemplified in sandwich courses (generally undergraduate) where students spend extended periods of time in work placements intended to provide them with experience in particular forms of work which may be practised after graduation. In these instances, the links between the university curriculum and the learning that occurs in the workplace are critical but often unclear. Work-based learning approaches involve learning in and through work contexts. Learning here emerges from the demands of work rather than from pre-determined academic content. Some universities are now ‘formalising’ work-based learning so that it can be credentialled through institutional processes. Typically, the arrangement that facilitates the formal assessment and accreditation of this learning is a three-way contract between university, employer and student/employee. Portfolios are developed by either the individual student/employee or their organisation to make claims for credit points that can contribute towards the negotiated award level. The extent to which an entire course is work based can be very flexible – ranging

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 243 from single work-based subjects to a complete work-based degree, diploma or certificate. In some instances recognition of prior learning may allow for flexible entry into a work-based course, and this may be combined with flexibility of exit. The idea of a complete work-based qualification is usually negotiated between a university and one organisation. In this approach the roles of student/employee can merge. The term ‘work-based learning’ can be used to encompass the three approaches described above (Garrick and Kirkpatrick 1998). Despite some commonalities, there are significant differences between the types of learning that occur in the workplace. For instance, if the learner is a student in a formal course engaging in a work placement or practicum, the learning dynamics are not the same as when the learner is an employee performing their regular job. An employee will be affected by their status in the workplace and the surrounding power relationships. Learning that is located in the workplace will be influenced strongly by that context. Workplace characteristics, including purposes, culture, structure, systems, work organisation and management are known to be central to the nature and scope of learning that occurs in them (Lave and Wenger 1991). Indeed, the changing contexts of work are clearly requiring new capacities in the labour force. For this chapter, it is the management of intellectual capital, the capacity-building intent of organisations, hungry for highly trained/skilled, flexible workers – always ready to learn – and the deployment of work-based learning strategies that are of primary interest.

Managing ‘intellectual’ capital and the roles of workbased learning To examine what it might mean to collapse the categories of ‘worker’ and ‘learner’ into one requires brief consideration. In advanced industrial societies vast changes in production and work have occurred over the past few decades. These changes are associated with the rapid development and expansion of electronic technology, particularly the development of automated production systems. Casey (1999) points out that these include highly automated computer-integrated continuous-process technology, Computer Aided Design, Computer Aided Manufacturing, Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CAD/CAM, CIM), flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) and computer integrated and ‘informated’ offices. Sophisticated electronic data processing and financial transfer such as Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale (EFTPOS) and integrated telecommunications now integrate not just

244 John Garrick plant and office but banks, shops, hospitals and public organisations. With the prolific use of email and Internet products, few workplaces are left unaffected. Casey points out that advanced production technologies, agritechnologies, and artificial intelligence including ‘smart’ machines and ‘seeing’ and ‘sensing’ robots, and their derivatives, profoundly affect industry and commerce, and social life more broadly. These developments have consequential and accompanying influences on all domains of production and are by no means specific to heavy industry or manufacturing. Aronowitz and di Fazio (1996) and Rifkin (1996) assert that the domain of the smart machine is beginning to permeate professional sites of work such as medicine, law, finance and architecture. The new technologies affect our entire social lives in some way and are located in changing contexts of increasingly ‘globalised’ work. The implications of these technological ‘advances’ just for the skills and knowledge required in the labour force are immense; the take-over by technology in our lives is so complete, that significant social debate on its affects is virtually non-existent. It is now a given. Not only do workers have to learn, be trained in and operate the new systems, they also have to ensure that their organisation (small or large) can compete in the changing contexts of the so-called marketplace. In turn, such demands affect the characteristics of what might be considered effective workplace-learning environments. At the same time work organisation and structures, managerial approaches/techniques and employee tasks and responsibilities are being constantly challenged and changed. To keep up to date, workers are now expected (and expecting) to be open to continual (lifelong) learning. As Usher points out in Chapter Thirteen, workbased learning can be an indicator both of successful self-management and a culturally sanctioned way in which subjects in restructured workplaces become ‘enterprising selves’. If one does not ‘keep up’, the risk of becoming obsolete and retrenched is very real. Therefore the business of learning in and through work contexts contains a range of tensions including industrial conflict and the shaping of employee identities. The drive to promote learning at work is difficult to argue against. Would you rather be employed in an organisation which discouraged learning? None the less it will be prudent to examine the ways in which the language of learning is used in workplaces. Although sometimes well-intentioned, contemporary discourses of learning are increasingly driven by political imperatives, production demands, efficiency require-

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 245 ments, cost effectiveness and market economics – all underpinned by a highly utilitarian form of knowledge. As Griffin (1997: 5) puts it, such ‘knowledge’ stresses ‘manipulative techniques, ready-made structures, impoverished language, and delight in surface appearance’. Her concern is that ‘conceptualisation’ in this mode of knowledge production is downgraded in favour of more superficial ‘information gathering’, although she makes the point that at least the consumer is free to reject the demand to think! ‘Intellectual’ capital Recently, much attention has been paid to ‘knowledge management’ and ‘intellectual capital’ (see Drucker 1995; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Edvinnson and Malone 1997; Marsick and Watkins 1999). This interest largely comes out of human resource management and development discourses that talk about the tangible outcomes of the learning organisation. For instance, these discourses frame the term ‘intellectual’ in certain ways that are directly connected to ‘capital’ interests. Through this connection, ‘knowledge’ and/or information become, as Evans explains in Chapter Twelve, products. Marsick and Watkins (1999), who are advocates of human capital theory, put it this way: ‘the creation and management of knowledge within the system, and its contribution to knowledge outcomes are captured through the idea of intellectual capital’. They assert that measures for ‘intellectual capital’ have grown from dissatisfaction with conventional economic measures of value: for instance, the (over)reliance on financially based instruments for assessing the merits of training and development. Indeed, some American and European companies are now beginning to question whether training and development should be treated as capital expenditure or as corporate overheads. There is nothing particularly new and exciting about the addition of ‘learning’ to workplaces here: it is the acknowledgment of its influence that is new. Drucker argues in the Harvard Business Review (1995: 37) that many American businesses have (sensibly) already shifted from traditional cost accounting to ‘activity-based costing’ which integrates value analysis, process analysis, quality management and costing. This represents a change containing the potential to combine management theory, organisational development and statistical thinking with the notion of continuous, lifelong learning. Human capital theorists, Marsick and Watkins (1997), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Edvinnson and Malone (1997), advocate that many assets brought to today’s postindustrial organisation are ‘intangibles’. These

246 John Garrick result from the knowledge of personnel, or systems and products they create. In the postmodern genre, Lyon (1994) calls this form of knowledge production ‘dataveillance’, which indicates subtle (and at times seductive) forms of electronic surveillance. In the industrial era, intangibles were identified as ‘good will’. But in today’s knowledge era, intellectual capital is described by Marsick and Watkins as having three capital components: human, structural and customer. They draw on Strassman (1996) to make the point that: re-engineering and downsizing play a critical role in destroying knowledge capital. The people who possess the accumulated knowledge about a company are the carriers of Knowledge Capital. They are the people who leave the workplace every night and may never return. They possess something for which they have spent untold hours listening and talking while delivering nothing of tangible value to paying customers. Their brains have become the repositories of an accumulation of insights about how ‘things work here’. … Learning organisations extend capacity to use learning as a strategic tool to generate new knowledge in the form of products, patents, processes and services; and to use technology to capture knowledge. (Marsick and Watkins 1999: 221) Clearly the role of ‘knowledge management’ has become a critical issue in post industrial workplaces. Work-based learning programmes when viewed through this theoretical lens are given new meaning. They are intimately connected to overall business interests. ‘Learning’ is reinscribed as a core component of intellectual capital – directly related to company ‘knowledge products’. The integration of learning into all aspects of the company’s business in this way becomes almost complete (almost). For it must be acknowledged that this ‘integration’ is discursively constructed and, as Haughey points out in Chapter Two, shaped by market forces. For instance, one of the more influential contemporary management/accounting texts (Kaplan and Norton 1996) cites examples of management in a range of corporations actively seeking to ‘improve asset utilization’ by incorporating knowledge creation and exchange as part of their mission. For these writers this means ‘a reduction in cash-to-cash cycles of investment in physical capital … in favour of investments in intellectual and human capital such as skilled technologists, data bases, and customer-knowledgeable personnel’ (p. 59). Within this discourse, the ‘intellectual’ capital of employees is constructed in a very specific way whereby their intellectual and human

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 247 capabilities are integrated with financial objectives. The most desirable results remain in terms of profit margins or observable (measurable) outcomes – ‘financial objectives represent the long-term goal of the organization: to provide superior returns based on the capital invested in the unit’ (Kaplan and Norton 1996: 61). Here, the measurement approach which remains popular is that of ‘the balanced scorecard’ which aims to make financial objectives explicit by adding return on knowledge assets to the traditional return on financial assets in the organisation’s yearly accounting metrics (p. 61). Again, it is worth pointing out that this human capital discourse conflates the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘assets’ in such a way as to reinscribe what constitutes ‘valid’ knowledge in favour of its business utility and financial value. Although there are great difficulties in measuring intellectual capital, it is nevertheless a concept that now has ‘hot currency’. It is not new, however, but enshrined in concepts that are being repackaged. This repackaging has the effect of creating theory and jargon which can be used to prepare a work environment for workplace restructuring, the re-engineering of worker functions – so they perform in innovative new ways – and, in some instances downsizing. This occurs in spite of Strassman’s (above) concern that ‘re-engineering and downsizing is destructing knowledge capital’. For most readers I am confident these phenomena will be chillingly familiar. The new ways of accumulating intellectual capital – or knowledge workers – are, to an extent, being re-engineered. In this way their functions are largely defined externally to those who are expected to do the creating, innovating and activating, although proponents of liberal humanism and human capital theories of ‘empowerment’ and ‘self-direction’ will deny this. My argument is that practitioners are frequently presented with something that is meant to be ‘new’ – even exciting – something they have to ‘learn about’ and then implement. Indeed, employees in many contemporary organisations hear about new learning ‘opportunities’ through staff development calendars or electronically, via email broadcasts to all staff. There is often an implicit managerial expectation that staff will avail themselves of the new offerings to develop themselves; if they do not, they may have to accept responsibility for their own professional demise. Drawing from Foucault (1982), such communication processes are precisely where discourses have the effect of power. With the overlay of new global driving forces in technology, cross-border competition, de-differentiation, demographics and email network communications, we now have, as an example of something new to learn about,

248 John Garrick the emerging discourse of ‘capacity building’. This new offering is, in part, intended to help ‘manage’ intellectual capital: the application of objective capacities implies relationships of communication (whether in the form of previously acquired information or of shared work): it is tied also to power relations (whether they consist of obligatory tasks, of gestures imposed by tradition, of sub-divisions and the more or less obligatory distribution of labor). (Foucault 1982: 218) Drawing on Foucault here helps to unmask the proposition that ‘capacity building’ is simply a more rational, objective process of adjustment to conditions of rapid economic and social change. Rather, it is an operation of technique built upon communications and the relationships of power – ‘which are distinct from objective abilities’ (Foucault 1982: 219). Fuelling institutional and work-based power relations are the interconnected discourses which circulate around the management of ‘intellectual’ capital: learning organisations, flexible learning, human and cultural capital, productive diversity and now capacity building. Within and through these discourses is a managerial reinscription of the term ‘intellectual’. It is a pragmatic form of ‘working knowledge’ that is now in demand and knowledge workers are required to help organisations and industries meet contemporary market challenges and the subsequent demands for new forms of ‘capacity building’. In turn, some universities (for instance Middlesex) – in flexible mode – are now offering suites of ‘trans-disciplinary’ work-based learning programmes. Before I examine the tensions associated with these phenomena, it is first necessary to see what capacity building is meant to entail. Capacity building at work There is no single definition of ‘capacity building’, but it is generally related to the deliberate promotion of new connections (dissolving boundaries) between the public and private sectors. Such multisectorial connections in turn require that employees possess integrated communicative capabilities that are meant to enhance the transferability of skills and employability. Citing the provision of ‘harm reduction services’ in Australian Public Health services as their example, Bush and Mutch (1998: 1) refer to capacity building as a shift in the relationship between the state and the community in

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 249 which the provision of services becomes ‘a web of cooperating and interdependent structures … it requires a shift from the state as a purchaser of services to the state as a civic catalyst’. Their example can also be applied to education services as there are dissolving boundaries between commerce, industry and education. The metaphor of a ‘web of interdependent structures’ is also applicable, encompassing commercial and non-commercial workplaces, although many public and university sector employees may well argue there are no more ‘non-commercial’ enterprises. Indeed, capacity building is a concept that is intimately connected with the adoption of market principles in both public and private sectors, bringing with it a ‘new’ language of flexible learning and training. New partnering arrangements are characteristic of many contemporary government business practices throughout OECD nations. In the UK, the Dearing Report (1997) and in Australia, the West Report (1998) emphasise the need for partnerships between higher education and industry, particularly in relation to the cooperative design and delivery of courses in addition to financial partnerships. The Fryer Report (1997) in the UK goes as far as to recommend a ‘University for Industry’ and the franchising of higher and further education. Public utilities are being sold to, or managed by, private ‘consortia’ in many domains: water, electricity, transportation, construction, health services, protective services (such as minimum security prisons) and education. Privatisation, well established in the USA, is now increasingly common throughout Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Governments still need to maintain as a minimum, however, an image of being strong, decisive and capable of intervening when required in the name of ‘civic good’. Underlying the language of altruism are the pressures of economics, markets and politics, and although the language of capacity building is indebted to ‘cooperation’ and ‘interdependence’, such outcomes will not be easy to achieve when profit margins are tight, significant capital investment is required or if financial (or political) risk is involved. The language of ‘capacity building’ has several features, incorporating: • • • •

the development and maintenance of partnerships across a range of work roles and development structures; continuous reciprocal transfer of knowledge between structures; flexible and innovative problem-solving; and investment of social, human and economic capital.

250 John Garrick As Edwards and Tait argue in Chapter Eight, the reciprocal transfer of knowledge (and responsibilities) between structures will always have political and organisational limitations. For instance, in market economies the gathering of information about organisations other than one’s employing agency can easily become a site of commercial exploitation. None the less, capacity building extends some of the principles of ‘the learning organisation’ in the seductive promise of delivering more ‘holistic’ community partnering arrangements between private companies and public service organisations. Such arrangements are perhaps best viewed against the contemporary backdrop of constant and unpredictable social and economic change. A significant aspect of ‘constant change’ is de-differentiation, or the breaking down, blurring and increasing permeability of boundaries and norms (Edwards and Usher 1998: 83). Indeed, postmodernity is characterised by de-differentiation. As Clegg (1995: 11) points out, modernity, as the outcome of modernisation, was premised on an increasing functional differentiation of phenomena. Postmodernisation and postmodernity on this account would be distinguished by a reverse process. In this instance, capacity building (and the management of intellectual capital) can be read as a set of postmodern practices that is based on de-differentiation – involving the blurring of boundaries between public/private responsibilities, contemplative/instrumental knowledge, self/other and so on. The complexities of contemporary work, and the many new tasks arising from these complexities, are radically challenging traditional approaches to education and training. The issues and problems of postmodernity are generating new interpretive frameworks, and the requirements for new conceptual resources and strategies. For instance, Usher (1997: 99) asserts that there is a widespread belief that ‘the education system [in the UK] has failed at all levels to produce a flexible, adaptable workforce motivated to learn throughout life’. One of the principal mechanisms designed to ‘fix’ this perceived problem – the competency-based education and training (CBET) system – is also showing serious deficiencies. Described as the ‘new vocationalism’ by Usher (1997: 99), competence is usually defined in terms of predominantly observable behaviour. This sometimes means that employees who have attained competency-based qualifications still lack the broader skills required to perform confidently in specific contexts. As an example, many workers in the construction industry are acquiring at specific building sites competency-based ‘tickets’ to operate various plant machinery and equipment such as hoists, back-hoes and even cranes.

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 251 Such tickets are recognised in the National Construction Industry’s accreditation standards. Yet many of those who have qualified to operate the equipment readily admit that their ‘ticketed’ skills and abilities are often surface level and not necessarily transferable (Garrick 1998). When competencies are defined in narrow, mechanistic and task-focused ways, CBET is limited in its capacities to offer the desired ‘learning’ solutions sought by industry leaders, senior government officials and many academics and educators. Although the limits of competence are becoming increasingly clear (Barnett 1997b), there remains a powerful acceptance of competency-based approaches to education and training at a policy level throughout OECD nations and amongst influential industry groups. Driving this acceptance is a perception by some industry leaders and government ministers of CBET that it has a crucial role in economic regeneration and competitiveness. An adequate preparation of people for the marketplace now requires greater subtlety, flexibility, responsiveness and pragmatism. As a consequence of rapid change, skilled workers and trained employees may have to discard ‘knowledge’ recently developed and adopt new ways of doing things at work. Pragmatic ‘know-how’ is now a highly sought-after commodity. It is against this backdrop that ‘capacity building’ approaches begin to look desirable. Capacity building is currently being promoted at the level of conceptual strategy in a range of government enterprises and private sector companies. Unlike earlier approaches to competency-based training, capacity building focuses on the ways that workers need to think, and how workers need to be in the world. In order to perform in the required ways for today’s high-tech workforce and partnering arrangements, workers have to reconceptualise not only their tasks and roles but themselves. Capacity building thus requires the construction of a workforce, including more ‘enterprising selves’ who can mobilise resources to match the unpredictability of the marketplace at any given moment. The idea of using embedded work-based learning rather than more conventional ‘formal’ education driven by pre-set curricula is, in part, designed to do precisely this. With employees increasingly having to work intersectorially, crossing professional, subject and disciplinary boundaries, and rapidly mobilise resources to survive (maintain one’s job), unprecedented opportunities and diversity are also spawned. Individual career pathways and professional identities are now open to multiple possibilities. Workers/learners are not merely passive subjects in this scenario. They are active subjects working within and against the

252 John Garrick tensions that permeate contemporary workplaces. For instance, capacity building can focus on work roles, with the aim of conceptually ‘freeing’ them up. But in so doing conflicts will invariably arise. These can be framed as ‘barriers’ to be addressed through ‘skills development’ and the promotion of ‘learning’ to work in partnerships and alliances – as distinct from more directly examining underlying issues/tensions. In the new partnering/team approaches, characteristic of many of today’s so-called ‘learning organisations’, the nature of conflict can be redefined with workers mobilised to be strategic problem-solvers more directly responsible for achieving the desired outcomes of change. Such redefining contains potential for significant benefits for both individuals and organisations, with employees being actively encouraged to learn and solve problems at grass-roots or shop-floor levels. But this is of course not unproblematic. The nature of knowledge is being transformed in the process and worker identities are being reshaped. Getting workers to make sense of the contradictions and tensions that permeate workplaces and to ‘fix’ them is an element of the current ways of ‘managing’ knowledge and intellectual capital. The incorporation of work-based learning into university education is, in part, an economic and social response to such pressures. Exacerbated by ‘free-market’ philosophies (termed ‘economic rationalism’ in Australia) and changed ideas throughout society about the roles of universities, Senge and Kim (1997) assert that higher education today is marked by decreased funding, lack of political support, and a public suspicious of and ambivalent towards academic institutions. The arrival of the so-called ‘knowledge era’ thus presents a new set of hopes and challenges. Bottomley, in Chapter Six, and Coffield and Williamson (1997) argue that one hope for the continued viability of university education lies in the philosophic approaches aimed at increasing the facilitation of lifelong learning – as knowledge-based societies become the norm. The idea of complete work-based qualifications rests heavily on this expectation. It should be noted, however, that universities are not simply passive recipients of ‘industry demands’; they are also agents for change. Work-based learning programmes have been presented as a response to the rapid economic and social changes occurring in our postmodern world – as one way of assisting in the corporate management of intellectual capital, the building of new capacities and, simultaneously, flexible employees.

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 253

Some conclusions? The new production of knowledge at work I have argued that in becoming flexible, formal education systems are playing an increasingly significant role in the ‘economics of knowledge’. Universities are being forced to reconsider their position in growing knowledge-based information economies. There is a general transformation of understanding of what counts as knowledge – more performative than contemplative ways of knowing (Barnett 1997b). Gibbons et al. (1994) assert that we live in a performative era in which knowledge is legitimised in so far as it will enhance productivity, improve economic competitiveness and personal effectiveness; representing a shift in focus on skills. Consumer demand for more operational and instrumental/pragmatic views of knowledge is escalating and, as Garrick and Kirkpatrick (1998) argue, universities no longer have a monopoly on the generation of definitions of knowledge. They are being required to respond to fundamental shifts in how we seek to know the world. Ideas of knowledge and truth are changing, and the powerful roles of work/markets, which have provided a framework for many public education policies in recent decades, are substantially shaping and legitimising what really counts. Corresponding with the increased focus on action and pragmatism is the growing recognition that it is important to manage intellectual capital. As a part of this management, I have referred to the emergence of capacity building and work-based learning programmes. These focus on ‘how to’, problem-solving activities and observable outcomes. Such major shifts in the roles and purposes of higher education are both causes and effects of change. I have also argued that the adoption of such approaches is not unproblematic. Educational programmes which have universities entering into contracts with business organisations will invariably have associated tensions. For instance, Garrick and Solomon (1997) point to a potential for the incorporation of workers into workplace culture – through workplace-based learning and the seductions of company reward structures. There may be nothing wrong with the seductive processes of contemporary work per se, but where the workplace becomes the curriculum there may be reduced scope for the learner to decide what constitutes valuable learning. It is invariably the organisation (via senior managers) which shapes the curriculum at work. Questions thus arise about the ‘safety’ of the worker/learner to contest managerial moves that may warrant some contestation (for example, in organisational business transactions or restructuring plans or in ‘cultural’ re-design). In the conduct of

254 John Garrick workplace-based degree programmes, I am arguing that individuals ought to be encouraged to learn the ‘hidden curriculum’ of the organisation. But of course this may not be easy as most contemporary models of work-based learning place supervisors or managers in the role of mentor, instructor and/or assessor. ‘Learning’ relationships can thus very easily perpetuate and even magnify the organisation’s power relationships. With negotiated work-based learning degrees and diplomas, a new category of student is being created – one who is likely to approach university learning from a perspective shaped, at least in part, by the organisation that employs them. This category of student is accompanied by issues related to the acculturation and socialisation of workers into organisations and, indeed, some senior expectations that the student will be ‘indebted’ to the organisation for providing them with the opportunity to ‘get a degree’ (Garrick and Kirkpatrick 1998: 179). Knowledge is now widely described as an asset and a resource. Establishing an appropriate balance between theoretical/disciplinarybased knowledge and the practical know-how desired in the workplace presents a significant challenge to staff responsible for planning and implementing these ‘flexible’ initiatives. To assist in this endeavour it may be worth heeding Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995: 21) theory of ‘knowledge management’ in which they say: knowledge, expressed in words and numbers, only represents the tip of the iceberg … knowledge is not easily visible and expressible. … Whereas Westerners tend to emphasise explicit knowledge, and the Japanese tacit knowledge … human knowledge is created through social interaction between the tacit and explicit. In an era characterised by ‘markets in education’ (Marginson 1997) – knowledge management, capacity building, managerial expectations that employees will be continuous learners and employees who expect learning ‘opportunities’ through work – flexible work-based education is most certainly a child of its time.

References Aronowitz, S. and di Fazio, W. (1996) The Jobless Future: Sci-Tech and the Dogma of Work, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Barnett, R.(1997a). Higher Education: A Critical Business, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

The management of ‘intellectual’ capital 255 —— (1997b). ‘Beyond competence’, in F. Coffield and B. Williamson (eds) Repositioning Higher Education, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Bush, R. and Mutch, A. (1998) ‘Capacity building for harm reduction at the district level: conceptual development and the dimensions of practice’, presented to the 4th Symposium on Community Action Research and the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, 8–13 February, Aotearoa, New Zealand. Casey, C. (1995) Work, Self and Society After Industrialism, London and New York: Routledge. —— (1999) ‘The changing contexts of work’, in D. Boud and J. Garrick (eds) Understanding Learning at Work, London: Routledge. Clegg, S.R. (1995) Modern Organisations, London: Sage Publications. Coffield, F. and Williamson, B. (eds) (1997). Repositioning Higher Education, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Dearing, R. (1997) The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, London: HMSO. Drucker, P. (1995) ‘The information executives truly need’, Harvard Business Review, January–February: 35–44. Edvinnson, L. and Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing your Company’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Roots, New York: Harper Collins. Edwards, R. and Usher, R.S. (1998) ‘Lo(o)s(en)ing the boundaries: from “education” to “lifelong learning” ’, Studies in Continuing Education 20, 1: 83–103. Foucault, M. (1982) ‘The subject and power’, in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Brighton: Harvester Press. Fryer, R.H. (1997) Learning for the 21st Century, Report of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, London: HMSO. Garrick, J. (1998) Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human Resource Development, London and New York: Routledge. —— and Kirkpatrick, D. (1998) ‘Workplace-based learning degrees: a new business venture, or a new critical business’, Higher Education Research and Development, 17, 2: 171–182. —— and Solomon, N. (1997) ‘Technologies of compliance in training’, Studies in Continuing Education, 19, 1: 71–81. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage. Griffin, A. (1997) ‘Knowledge under attack: consumption, diversity and the need for values’, in R. Barnett, and A. Griffin (eds) The End of Knowledge in Higher Education, London Institute of Education Series, London: Cassell.

256 John Garrick Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Lather, P. (1991) Reconfiguring Educational Research Feminist Research in Education: Within/Against, Geelong: Deakin University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyon, D. (1994) The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society, Cambridge: Polity Press. Lyotard, J.F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester, Manchester University Press. Marginson, S. (1997) Markets in Education, Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace, London: Routledge. —— (1997). ‘Organisational learning: review of research’, in L. J. Bassi and D. Russ-Eft (eds) What Works and What Doesn’t: Assessment, Development, and Measurement, Alexandria, Virginia: American Society for Training and Development. —— (1999) ‘Envisioning new organisations for learning’, in D. Boud and J. Garrick (eds) Understanding Learning at Work, London: Routledge. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company, New York: Oxford. Parker, M. (1998) ‘Judgement day: cyborganization, humanism and postmodern ethics’, Organization, 54, 4: 503–518. Probert, B. (1999) ‘Gender workers and gendered workplaces: implications for women’s learning’, in D. Boud and J. Garrick (eds) Understanding Learning at Work, London: Routledge. Rifkin, J. (1996) The End of Work, New York: Putnam Books. Senge, P.M. (ed.) (1994) The Fifth Discipline Field Book: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organisation, Toronto and New York: Currency Doubleday. —— and Kim, D.H. (1997) ‘From fragmentation to integration: building learning communities’, The Systems Thinker, 8, 4: 1–5. Strassman, P. (1996) ‘Leading lights: knowledge strategist Paul Strassmann, an interview’, Knowledge Inc. Executive Report. Tessaring, M. (CEDEFOP) (1998) Training for a Changing Society: A Report on Current Vocational Education and Training Research in Europe, Thessalonika: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. Usher, R.S. (1997) ‘Seductive texts: competence, power and knowledge in postmodernity’, in R. Barnett, and A. Griffin (eds) The End of Knowledge in Higher Education, London Institute of Education Series, London: Cassell. —— and Edwards, R. (1994) Postmodernism and Education, London and New York: Routledge. West, R. (Chair) (1998) Learning for Life; Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Part IV

Conclusion

15 Flexible learning and the construction of ‘working knowledge’ John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec

As we said in Chapter One, this book can be read in several ways. It can be taken as an evolving theoretical development, a collection of essays, a set of contradictions or indeed all of these. Our intention from the outset has been to explore flexible learning as it applies to human resource and organisational development practices. Many of the chapters have addressed the interwoven issues of contemporary learning requirements that confront formal education and training institutions and workplaces. Contributors have analysed concepts of flexible learning and HRD from a diverse set of perspectives. For instance, some have focused on the problematic issues concerning the relationships between private enterprise, government policies, and education and training providers. Others have focused on issues of globalisation and flexible learning; whilst others have highlighted the impact of new technologies upon our practices and our very ways of thinking. Some readers may be somewhat sceptical that such a pastiche could lead towards any coherent conclusion. But we have formed a conclusion: that flexible learning cannot, and ought not, be understood as a singularity. We argue that flexible learning is best understood as a mobile, dynamic facet of complex and rapidly evolving ecologies of learning. Flexible approaches to learning, whether governed by formal education providers or workplaces themselves, are not simply technical systems of conveyance or delivery. They are dynamically constructing and constructed by larger social forces – larger archaeological changes. New knowledge and new ways of legitimising knowledge are central to this historical moment, and flexible approaches to learning provide a critical frame for understanding the archaeological changes creating this future. As several contributors have variously pointed out, governments in most developed economies have reduced public funding for and increased regulatory demands upon formal education and training

260 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec providers. Dominant political discourses shaping education and training revolve around economy and reform. For instance, the creation of favourable macro-economic environments, markets and competition. Underlying these powerful (and interconnected) discourses is globalisation. More critical observers might use language such as ‘postmodern global capitalism’ or ‘Euro-American parochialism’. For us, however, if intellectual reflectivity or theory is to be of any use, it may be helpful to view these influences as a part of the larger archaeological changes occurring world-wide. ‘Flexible learning’ in this context becomes a mobile metaphor for possibility and for alternative ways of knowing and doing. National governments throughout the OECD are focusing on strengthening their economic structures by emphasising production and services with ‘high added value’. The political tenets underpinning such emphases are based on the ideology of globalisation as exemplified by historical events such as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), the introduction of the Euro and the broader construction of the European Union nomenclature. Other critical dimensions that accompany these social/political movements include the increased demands for ‘knowledge workers’ and the concurrent need for recognising skills and abilities in ways that cross national, cultural and disciplinary boundaries. It is increasingly perceived by government and industry planners, policy-makers, legislators and educators alike that sustainable growth in global and national economies requires tapping innovative and creative potentials which, in turn, are enhanced by linking education and training to economy and through greater use of technological opportunities. OECD governments in their political discussions about economy, education and training, and technology have set ambitious targets for improvement in the knowledge bases of their labour forces – especially a ‘knowledge-intensity’ based on ICTs and CMC. These ambitious targets revolve around two categories of argumentation: first is the general argument about competitive market forces and their impact on national economies, industries and commerce. Second is the argument that to achieve a competitive edge in global markets, industrial, educational and science policy should be mutually reinforcing. What is glaringly absent in much of the government argumentation are the broader social, ethical and epistemological aims (and implications) of the new linkages of education, training, science and work that go beyond the rhetoric of ‘strengthening economic structures and systems’. Within the mutually interdependent dance of globalisation and the rise of economic rationalism, it

The construction of ‘working knowledge’ 261 appears to us that the social and cultural fabrics of societies (beyond economics) are being somewhat ignored. In the following sections we endeavour to identify some of the key challenges for educators, HRD planners and managers to redress this omission through steps to improve access to learning and future knowledge. This assumes, of course, at least a modicum of willingness on the part of government agencies, enterprises, companies, employers, unions, research organisations and education and training institutions to seek outcomes that go well beyond financial ‘bottom-lines’. We don’t claim that this will be easy!

Globalisation revisited Globalisation is given a prominent position by most contributors in this book. Indeed, globalisation is one of the most widely discussed issues in all aspects of contemporary economic policy. By linking education and training to economic strategy, globalisation has become a central ingredient of policy formulation related to education, training and HRD. It is shaping key aspects (and futures) of universities, simultaneously changing them away from being monopolistic sites of knowledge development and validation. One of the reasons, as Hawkridge points out in Chapter Eleven, has much to do with technological developments such as ICTs. These have most certainly contributed to the increased redundancy of national boundaries. Using ICTs, companies and education and training institutions have a growing choice of international locations to conduct business. There is no longer the same need for would-be host countries to create advantageous environments for education and training organisations to set up operations. For instance, in the Australian context the multifunction ‘polis’ near Adelaide (which offered high-tech companies attractive tax incentives should they locate there) has been drastically scaled down by authorities. Now seen as a white elephant, the multifunction polis had been touted by politicians representing ‘left’ and ‘right’ persuasions for almost twenty years as a high-tech solution to South Australia’s lack of international economic competitiveness. Virtually any technologically developed corporation can now provide courses and programmes using ICTs and CMC irrespective of their geographical location. What they need to be successful, however, include conditions conducive to learning and the ability to attract both individuals and cohorts of students from organisations. Herein lies a range of opportunities for innovative HRD departments or units, and these can have a substantial impact on the formal

262 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec provision of education and training. For instance, not only are delivery methods changing, but workplaces are increasingly forming key parts of curricula to the point that work can become ‘the curriculum’. This carries significant implications for the recognition of ‘what counts’ as valid learning, credentialling and the legitimisations of new knowledge. New challenges are emerging for universities related to increased competition, not only from other universities but from alternative private training providers and companies. Based on the power of new technologies to radically alter education and training, Bangeman (1994) talks about such changes as indicative of a ‘post’ industrial revolution. The broad consequences of (and doubts about) globalisation are outlined by a number of contributors in this book (see, for instance, Haughey in Chapter Two, Jakupec in Chapter Five and Edwards and Tait in Chapter Eight). We briefly summarise some of the main consequences as follows: First, globalisation puts not only greater pressures on national economies but also on education and training sectors, companies and individuals. The pressure is generated by fierce international competition which has a flow-on effect at national levels. Due to this open competition, education and training institutions and in-house HRD departments are all required to respond more effectively to the ensuing economic, social and cultural imperatives. Such responses are important, with universities increasingly challenged to provide intellectual frameworks that can help to absorb the inevitable social and cultural shocks that accompany rapid technological and organisational change. They are not always successful in this grand endeavour. Second, the capacity of education and training institutions to attract students is becoming increasingly important in the ‘market’ context as potential investments in ICTs can be used at a growing number of locations world-wide. As competition between universities and colleges at national levels increases, so too does international competition. Many governments, as Edwards and Tait illustrate, have already ‘forged’ a range of policy measures to improve the business acumen of universities and colleges. This frequently translates at institutional level to educational and training plans that aim to promote more flexible delivery of courses and programmes. In turn more flexible offerings are intended to attract more students and forge alliances between institutions, industries and commerce. The main features of flexibility highlighted in this book include access to courses through appropriate CMC infrastructures – in the ‘right’

The construction of ‘working knowledge’ 263 places and at the ‘right’ time – flexibility of course content, collaboration with industry and employers, and work-based learning ‘partnerships’. Third, and a critical consequence of globalisation, is that the success of universities, colleges and enterprises will depend on activities embodying a high degree of knowledge. Education and training institutions will not be able to compete for students merely on the basis of low-cost courses and low fee structures. The increased emphasis on knowledge and demand for ‘knowledge workers’ applies to the entire education and training sector – public and private. In short, the competitiveness of education and training providers depends on the overall quality of courses, services, networks and alliances in addition to costs. The above aspects of globalisation have been evident for some time, but the situation has intensified over the past decade. As many universities, colleges and other education and training providers have experienced, they can no longer compete on the cost of their courses alone. But even with the shift to quality provision, services, and relevance of knowledge claims, the competition is intensifying. As we have argued, many traditional higher education and tertiary training providers have lost their monopoly on the provision of high quality education. As various contributors have pointed out (see, for instance, Paul in Chapter Three, King in Chapter Seven and Thorpe in Chapter Ten), open and distance education providers, such as the Open University, allow for many aspects of flexibility in learning and have excellent support infrastructures. Indeed, the University of Phoenix is exclusively an online campus. The competition is intensified by traditional universities adopting flexible learning, work-based learning and distributed learning approaches in addition to their uses of ICTs and CMC. We see government policy stimulating this trend, which has very significant implications for research and development and the concept of what constitutes ‘useful’ knowledge more generally.

Government policies and working knowledge Knowledge has become one of the most important resources individuals and organisations can marshal in a knowledge-based learning society. This book makes it clear that a conception of knowledge is present in all kinds of social processes such as in face-to-face education, flexible learning, work-based learning and in-house HRD activities. One of the messages we are taking from contributors is, however, that knowledge is currently seen by many to be embodied

264 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec in economic production and services. In a sense Lyotard (1984) referred to this as the ‘mercantilisation’ of knowledge. But Lyotard could not have envisaged the dramatic extent to which technology would enter the game since he first wrote about the ‘postmodern condition of knowledge’ in 1979. None the less, as Roberts (1998: 1) observes, Lyotard was stunningly accurate in his account of the changing nature of knowledge in late capitalist societies. Roberts’ rereading of Lyotard – in the light of New Zealand’s marketeconomic reforms – suggests that performativity, commodification of knowledge and the ‘death of the professor’ in computerised societies are certainly features of the contemporary landscape. Lyotard (1984: 9) argues (and we agree with this): that knowledge and power are two sides of the same question. In the West, narrative knowledge has been subjugated by scientific knowledge … the latter governed by the demand for legitimation… In the computer age the question of knowledge is now more than ever a question of government. The function of the state will change: machines will come to play an important role in regulatory and reproductive processes and the power to make decisions will increasingly be determined by questions of access to information. Lyotard’s main points here are that professors will no longer be needed when much of their work can be taken over by computerised data network systems and that computerisation can regulate (and control) the market system and extend to the construction of an exclusively performative knowledge. Roberts’ (1998) analysis of the New Zealand government policy context provides one powerful illustration of how ‘telling’ Lyotard’s points have been: The legitimacy of the market as the ideal platform on which to base social life remains unquestioned. … The philosophy of ‘user-pays’, routinely cited as a justification of change has become the order of the day in education. Education, in short, has become a commodity: something to be produced, packaged, sold, traded, outsourced, franchised and consumed. (Roberts 1998: 4) We have not sought to define precisely what we mean by ‘working knowledge’, but we are using the term in relation to knowledge in use – arising out of and addressed to problems in working life. This

The construction of ‘working knowledge’ 265 is not merely applied knowledge or the instrumentalisation of reason. The production and legitimisations of knowledge have shifted in our changing world. Formal propositional knowledge – favoured in traditional academic research – no longer offers the seductive promise of ‘light’ as it may have in past generations. This is not a flight from reason, but it does indicate a shift in our definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘learning’. As Barnett (1999: 35 ) puts it: Each profession has its own mix of factual knowledge, theoretical principles, action understanding, process knowledge, tacit knowledge and communicative competence. The precise mix will be intuited through engagement over time within each profession. The differences will be subtle. Multinational, medium and small-sized enterprises in different sectors of the economy will have their own styles of communication and interaction, their own attitude to formal knowledge and their own views on the value of research and evaluation. What counts as being effective in particular environments within the world of work may not be spelt out but it will be picked up; the mysteries are revealed even if they are not made explicit. Working knowledge then is about knowledge-in-action, professional knowledge (based on working professional principles and situated ethics), problem-solving, action learning and technical know-how. With regard to technological knowledge, this book has made it clear that this is but one critical component of flexible learning. In part, technological knowledge relates to the uses of ICTs. It also connects to intellectual knowledge management and knowledge encountered in language and discourse – the more general knowledge that is constructed through social and cultural processes. But as Barnett claims (above), and as Roberts implies (in the earlier quotation), it is difficult to express knowledge solely in economic and quantitative terms. We agree and see a range of more optimistic possibilities in ‘working knowledge’ that is likely to accompany flexible learning than Lyotard is predicting. Even though the flexibility of knowledge today is manifested in products, processes, communication and services and not only academic endeavours, there is exciting potential here. There is the potential for unprecedented public access to data banks and, as Rowan points out in Chapter Nine, new opportunities exist for addressing a range of ethical issues, although it must be said (as variously indicated by Haughey in Chapter Two, and Evans in Chapter Twelve) that flexible learning can easily advantage those

266 John Garrick and Viktor Jakupec who are already socially and economically well placed rather than providing opportunities for the disadvantaged. Without addressing conditions that create such disparities, the so-called ‘global’, networked access will remain limited. In addition to this ethical dimension of flexible learning, we would argue that the working knowledge required for contemporary economic, social and cultural sustainability is far broader than its monetary exchange value. This is not our nostalgia; rather it is an observation about what is different in the flexibility required in contemporary knowledge acquisition, production and dissemination. Our hopes are also cautionary as, through ICTs and ‘knowledge’ becoming more available than ever before, applications of knowledge can be expected to change very rapidly. Such flexibility impacts on employees in many ways, generating what Usher, in Chapter Thirteen, refers to as ‘enterprising selves’. Becoming ‘enterprising’ in this hyper-real context can generate unprecedented demands on our mental lives. Clearly, the relationship between flexible learning and learning flexibility warrants more intensive examination than has been the case. Jakupec (Chapter Five), Hawkridge (Chapter Eleven) and Garrick (Chapter Fourteen) variously point out that knowledge and ‘intellectual capital’ entail far more than simply investment in R&D. For example, transnational companies such as McDonald’s, CNN and others have taken large slices of market share, not only by investing in R&D, but more so in education, training and HRD. In the ‘service sector’ alone, which is the single largest growth area in OECD countries, ‘working knowledge’ is not necessarily reflected in national or company spending on R&D. Indeed, although data on R&D spending can be provided, this is not particularly meaningful. There are simply too many factors that determine what legitimises knowledge and how it can be attained. The point is that increasingly advanced economies acknowledge the importance of knowledge as a competitive factor and this acknowledgement takes the form of investment in intangibles. Such investment is advancing (proportionally) more rapidly than investment in tangible assets such as buildings, plant, machinery and equipment. If ignored, intangibles such as ‘intellectual capital’, according to Kaplan and Norton (1996), have the potential to put companies at a disadvantage due to lack of current relevant knowledge. This is precisely where an understanding of flexible learning/teaching practices and processes becomes vital. As Kaplan and Norton assert, instead of investing in R&D alone to gain competitive advantages, it may well be more advantageous

The construction of ‘working knowledge’ 267 for companies to collaborate with universities and colleges in new ways to develop and deliver education and training for their employees. Their assertion rests on the idea that industries must greatly improve their performance in the field of knowledge production through greater provision of learning opportunities for employees. Although this might appear to put an additional financial burden on companies and organisations, their argument is that it ‘pays off’. In this scenario, government reductions in funding for higher education and training appears ill-conceived. It seems to be stating the obvious that industry and commerce share with higher education and tertiary training sectors a considerable responsibility for the generation and application of knowledge and new educational technologies. Yet this does not appear to be so readily recognised by many political interests. With the increased ‘marketisation’ and commodification of education and training ‘products’ and the corresponding tendency for governments to avoid intervention in economics, one could argue that a short-sighted game is being played. As we have argued, we see far greater possibilities for flexible learning human resource and organisational development; indeed, paraphrasing (and mis-appropriating) Derrida (1994: 32): ‘the happening of the event [flexible learning] is what cannot and should not be prevented: it is another name for the future itself’.

References Bangeman, M. (1994) Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council (Bangeman Group Report) Brussels: European Union. Barnett, R. (1999) ‘Learning to work and working to learn’, in D. Boud and J. Garrick (eds) Understanding Learning at Work, London: Routledge. Derrida, J. (1994) ‘The deconstruction of actuality’, Radical Philosophy, 68 (Autumn). Jacobs, D. (1994) Competition, Partnership and Innovation: A Review of the Problems, The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard, Boston: Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Roberts, P. (1998) ‘Rereading Lyotard: knowledge, commodification and higher education, Electronic Journal of Sociology, online: http://www.sociology.org/vol003.003/roberts.article.1998.html

Index

access: higher education 181; knowledge 37, 39 Account Ability 202–3 accountability: higher education 32, 35–6, 90 accreditation: credit accumulation 185; experiential learning 177, 180, 181–2, 185; higher education 42–3; negotiation 185; unpaid work roles 182; workplace 230 advertising: globalisation 15–16 Allied Dunbar 202 Alverno College 115 Anglian Water 204 Asia: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 73; business 23 assessments: experiential learning 178; women 161–4 Australia: Australian Technology Network Universities 116; change and management 108–13; conservative coalition government 109, 113; consultative relationships with stakeholders 115–16; cost of teaching provision 120; Deakin University see Deakin University; deepening crisis 109; demand forecast 79; Department for Employment 88, 89, 156; education and training 151, 213; flexible learning 59–62, 64; funding 110; Griffith University 100; Hoare Report (1996) 100;

information and computer technologies (ICTs) 100; information technology 56–8, 100–4; Macquarie University 110; management of education 112–13, 120, 122–7; market forces 109–10; Monash University 110, 157, 163; new organisational structures 115, 124–5; OLA see Open Learning Australia; planning/quality improvement cycles 116; public policy 72, 88–9, 109–11, 112–13; quantity/quality 78; Queensland University of Technology 100; South Australia see University of South Australia; staff development 100–2; TV Open Learning (TVOL) 156–7; University of Melbourne 123; University of New South Wales 123; University of Southern Queensland 123; women see women Bank of America 205 Barclays Bank Plc 202 Barlow, Maude 20 BMW: Rover Group acquisition 26 Bottomley, John 87–106 Bradley, D. 119 Braidotti, Rosi 165–70, 171 British Aerospace Plc 204 British Gas Plc 204 British Steel Plc 204

Index 269 British Telecommunications Plc 200–1 broadcasting 156–7, 194, 195 Brown, David 96–7 business: Asia 23; enterprise culture 117–18; globalisation 21–5 Business in Sight 203 Canada: aid to Ukraine 15; Council of Canadians 20; UBC see University of British Columbia capacity building: learning organisations 250; meaning 248–9; post-modernism 250; workplace 248–52 capital: globalisation 226, 233; human 151; intellectual see intellectual capital capitalism: fast see fast capitalism; post-industrial see post-Fordism Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1972) 33–4 CD-ROM: technology-mediated learning 196, 197, 201, 204, 205, 209 change: acceleration 11, 23; culture 227; de-differentiation 250; education and training 67, 136, 217; globalisation 11, 14–15, 23; governing metaphor 130; higher education institutions 107–29, 227; ideological 68; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 219; pressures 108–9; resistance in higher education 32–3, 137, 189; social see social change; socio-political change 14–15, 107; technology 55–8, 136–7, 219 Charterhouse Bank: interactive video 203 Coca Cola 204 collaboration: higher education 236; University of South Australia 127 commodification: knowledge 64, 141, 264 communication: computer-mediated communication (CMC) 73, 75, 76, 77, 80, 233, 260; one-way

195, 196; telecommunications see telecommunications competencies: competency-based education and training (CBET) 250, 251; definition 250 competition: education and training 3, 22, 78, 135; globalisation 21, 72, 151, 226, 262; higher education 24, 262; innovation 134 complexity: Deakin University 95; declining resources 91–3; higher education 90, 91–3 computers: CAD/CAM/CIM 243; computer-mediated communication (CMC) 73, 75, 76, 77, 80, 233, 260; ICTs see information and computer technologies; IT see information technology; mediated learning see technology-mediated learning; printed paper 218–19; technology see technology; video see interactive video constructivism: knowledge 176; learning 215–16 copyright: knowledge 41 cost-effectiveness: flexible learning 103–4; technology-mediated learning 194, 200, 207–8 costs: information technology 103–4; teaching provision 120; videoconferencing 205 course packages: higher education 38, 40; mediated learning see technology-mediated learning; self-directed learning 53; videodisc see interactive video; web-based courses 204, 205, 209, 219 Cresson, Edith 1 culture: advertising 16; change 227; computer-mediated communication (CMC) 80; enterprise 117–18; globalisation 71; higher education 80, 118; homogenisation resisted 19–20; Internet 19; technology 34–5; workplace 230 currencies: globalisation 16–17

270 Index curriculum: control 137, 141; negotiation 142; workplace 231, 235 Deakin University: Centre for Academic Development 102; complexity 95; distance education 218; diversity 95; flexible learning 98–9, 218; information strategy 92; information systems 98–9; lifelong learning 94, 98; Professional Development Coordinating Committee 102; staff development 102; student numbers 92–3, 218; teaching and learning 94–5; teaching models 103 Dearing Report (1997) 249 delivery modes: diversity 100; flexibility 53, 54, 214–23; higher education 90; off-campus 219; parameters 221–2; technologymediated learning 195–6, 219; University of South Australia 126–7 deregulation: financial markets 135; flexibility 132; higher education 72 digital video disc (DVD): technology-mediated learning 204, 209 disciplinary power: education and training 142 distance education: conceptualisation 214–15; Deakin University 218; European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) 139; European Union 139; globalisation 141; higher education 138, 213, 217–18; industrial product analogy 214, 215; International Council for Distance Education (ICDE) 44, 139; post-Fordism 49, 215; Unesco 139; United Kingdom 213 diversity: Deakin University 95;

delivery modes 100; flexible learning 63, 81; higher education 90 economic growth: education and training 68, 140, 239; flexibility 132; globalisation 72; higher education 31–2, 71; knowledge 76–7; lifelong learning 76 economic rationalism: education and training 150–3, 252; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 69–70; open learning 152 education: distant learning see distance education; knowledge see knowledge; learning see learning; management see management of education; packages see course packages; post-secondary see higher education; vocational see vocational education; workplace see workplace education and training: Australia 151, 213; change 67, 136, 217; competency-based (CBET) 250, 251; competition 3, 22, 78, 135; disciplinary power 142; economic conditions 78–80; economic growth 68, 140, 239; economic rationalism 150–3, 252; expansion 217; flexibility 140; funding 72; globalisation 3, 69, 72, 75; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 73, 74, 75, 82–3; innovation 137; lifelong learning 22–4, 79–80, 81, 140, 244; mediated learning see technology-mediated learning; open learning 151; opportunities/challenges 77–82; policy migration 135–6; postFordism 140; reform 136; social justice 68; social/cultural implications 80–1; unresolved problems 74; vocational see vocational education; women 154–6 Edwards, Richard 130–45

Index 271 efficiency: globalisation 150–1 employment: earnings 142–3; flexibility 132; flexible learning 141–3; higher education 185–6; knowledge workers see knowledge workers; lifelong learning 23–4; part-timers 23; unemployment see unemployment; workplace see workplace European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) 139 European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP): 1998 report 5 European Union: distance learning 139; euro 260; flexibility 131; flexible learning 135; international policies 73; open learning 139 evaluation: higher education 35–6; interactive video 201; technologymediated learning 193, 201, 205–8 Evans, Terry 211–24 experiential learning: accreditation 177, 180, 181–2, 185; applications 180; assessments 178; cyclical model 178–9; facilitation 177–80; four modes 179; key practices 180; reflection 177–9, 181, 183; reflective practitioner approach 177–8, 181, 186; social/personal change 177; student-centred learning 177; technical-rationalism 178; unpaid work roles 182 fast capitalism: flexible learning 47–8, 52, 64; post-Fordism see post-Fordism feminism: flexible learning 149–74; human resource management 149–74; women see women financial markets: deregulation 135; globalisation 16–18; Multilateral

Agreement on Investment (MAI) 20 flexibility: concept explored 47–66, 214–16; contested terms/concepts 49–50; context 53–4; delivery modes 53, 54, 214–23; deregulation 132; discourses 50–4; economic growth 132; education and training 140; employment 132; empowerment/regulation 229, 234; European Union 131; forging flexibility 131–4; human resource development 132–3, 134; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 131; innovation 134; knowledge 75–7; learning organisations 134, 138; lifelong learning 55, 76, 138, 143; literature of teachers 52–4; modular courses 187;multiple meaning 48–9; neoSchumpeterian 131; neo-Smithian 131; organisations 140, 216, 226; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 31; politics 87; postFordism see post-Fordism; postmodernism 216; power relationships 58–9; public policy 135; reactive/active forms 134, 140; regulation school 131; sociology 50, 51–2; technological change 55–8; ubiquitous use 47–8; unemployment 132; working with flexibility 59–62 flexible learning: Australia 59–62, 64; characteristics 212; commonalities 136; conceptualisation 214–16; costeffectiveness 103–4; Deakin University 98–9, 218; diversity 63, 81; employment 141–3; European Union 135; fast capitalism 47–8, 52, 64; feminism 149–74; flexible learners 211–24; forging flexible learning 140–3; forging policies 130–45; geographical dispersal 142; globalisation 11–29, 63, 69,

272 Index 70–7, 82–3, 143; human resource development 138–9; ICT see information and computer technologies; implications for practice 149–256; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 140–1, 142; learning flexibility 227–8, 230–6; learning organisations 141; meaning 3–4, 98; mediated learning see technology-mediated learning; other models 137; pedagogical implications 175–92; politics 67–84; post-Fordism 49; postmodernism 225–38; reconfiguring institutional strategies 87–106; resistance 137; setting the scene 11–84; studentcentred 52–3, 175–7; subjectivity 230–6; teaching models 103; terminology 3–4, 98, 211–13, 225; theory to work 4–6, 87–145; United Kingdom 213; University of South Australia 59–62, 64; workplace 2–4, 193–210, 225–30 Ford Motor Co.: interactive video 201 Fordism see post-Fordism Foucault, Michel 138, 221, 228, 247–8 Fryer Report (1997) 249 Fujitsu Centre 123 Fukuyama, Francis 18, 19 funding: Australia 110; education and training 72; higher education 32, 75 Garrick, John 1–8, 239–56, 259–67 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 260 Global Alliance 104 globalisation: accelerated change 11, 23; adjustments 75; advertising 15–16; business implications 21–5; capital 226, 233; causes 13–14; characteristics 12–13; competition 21, 72, 151, 226, 262; culture 71; currencies

16–17; distance education 141; economic growth 72; education and training 3, 69, 72, 75; efficiency 150–1; financial markets 16–18; flexible learning 11–29, 63, 69, 70–7, 82–3, 143; governance 74; higher education 24–5, 63, 72, 73, 78–9, 138, 226; influence 14–18; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 73–5, 141, 219; Internet see Internet; knowledge 73, 217, 233, 261–3; knowledge workers 21; McDonaldization 72; meaning 12–13, 28; national governments 18; neo-liberalism 72; new learning models 25–8; open learning 141; opportunities/challenges 67–84; overrated/underestimated 18–20; policies 135, 139; political concept 71–3; politics 70–7; retail sector 18–19; socio-political change 14–15; sovereignty 74, 75; telecommunications 14, 21; tourism 13–14; transnational corporations 20; unemployment 22–3; vocational education 138 governance: globalisation 74 Griffith University 100 Grosz, Elizabeth 149–50 Halifax Plc 202 Haughey, Margaret 11–29 Hawkridge, David 193–210 Hayden, Frank 26 higher education: academic authority 185–6; academic credentials 42–3; academic work 100; access courses 181; accountability 32, 35–6, 90; accreditation 42–3; administrative infrastructure 116–17; Australia see Australia; Carnegie Commission (1972) 33–4; central roles 31–2; change 107–29, 227; change resistance 32–3, 137, 189; characteristics 89–90; circumspect preterism 82;

Index 273 collaboration 236; collegiality 112; commitments 76; competition 24, 262; complexity 90, 91–3; conflicting roles 32–3; co-professionals 100; counterculture role 40; course packages 38, 40; culture 80, 118; custom/convention 189; delivery modes 90; deregulation 72; digital technology 30–46; distance education 138, 213, 217–18; diversity 90; economic conditions 78–80; economic growth 31–2, 71; employment 185–6; enterprise culture 117–18; euphoric technicism 82; evaluation 35–6; experimentation 40; flexible paradigm 56–8; funding 32, 75; globalisation 24–5, 63, 72, 73, 78–9, 138, 226; Information Age 30, 33, 37; information systems 91–3; input/output measures 36, 43; knowledge see knowledge; layered information strategies 92, 93; learning see learning; lifelong learning 79–80, 81; McDonald’s 27; management see management of education; markets see markets; mass higher education 89–90, 232; mega-universities 217, 219; new teaching approaches 120–7; New Zealand 220, 264; niche markets 90; open learning 138; open universities see open universities; organisational structures 114–15, 124–5; Pacific Western Bell Telephone Co. 27; paraacademics 100; performance indicators 35, 36, 81, 115; planning/quality improvement cycles 116; post-Fordism 51; pressure for change 108–9; private sector links 24, 25; professional development see staff development; public policy 88–9; Rover Group 26–7; scholars’ haven 31–2, 35, 37; service-based marketing 111;

social change 31–2, 80–1; sociopolitical change 107; sovereignty 30–46; staff rewards 118–19; subjectivity 236; technical infrastructure 116–17; technology/shifting paradigm 33–44; transformation 43–4; value 38; workplace education see workplace Honda: Rover Group joint venture 25–6 human capital: intellectual capital 245–48; knowledge workers 151 human resource development: flexibility 132–3, 134; flexible learning 138–9; lifelong learning 139; provision of opportunities 141 human resource management: feminism 149–74; learning organisations 151 HyperText Mark-up Language (HTML) 205 India: open universities 218 Indira Ghandi National Open University 218 Information Age: higher education 30, 33, 37 information and computer technologies (ICTs): Australia 100; change 219; computermediated communication (CMC) 73, 75, 76, 77, 233, 260; economic rationalism 69–70; education and training 73, 74, 75, 82–3; entertainment 19; expectations 3; flexibility 131; flexible learning 140–1, 142; globalisation 73–5, 141, 219; growth 22; information flows 75; Internet 73; knowledge 73–4, 233; knowledge workers 21–2; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 69, 260; student-centred learning 177 information technology: academic work 100; advanced technologies

274 Index 244; Australia 56–8, 100–4; CAD/CAM/CIM 243; computermediated communication (CMC) 73, 75, 76, 77, 80, 233, 260; cost advantages 103–4; Deakin University 98–9; Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale (EFTPOS) 243; equity issues 63; flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) 243; higher education 91–3;investment 102–3; mediated learning see technology-mediated learning; printed paper 218–19; staff development 100–2; strategic approach 93–9, 104; telecommunications 243–4; University of British Columbia 97; video see interactive video; Wake Forest University 95–7 innovation: competition 134; education and training 137; flexibility 134; knowledge 233; pedagogies 181; student-centred learning 188 intellectual capital: capacity building 248; management 245–8 interactive video: Account Ability 202–3; Business in Sight 203; Charterhouse Bank 203; demise 204, 209; evaluation 201; Ford Motor Co. 201; learning centres 204; LloydsTSB Group 201–2; Price Waterhouse 202–3; Risky Business 203; Statistical Process Control (SPC) 201; technologymediated learning 197, 200, 201–4; Terminal Risk 203 International Council for Distance Education (ICDE) 44, 139 International Development Bank: structural adjustment programmes 137 International Monetary Fund (IMF): international policies 73; structural adjustment programmes 137 Internet: corporate interests 41; course packages 38, 40; culture 19; globalisation 16, 21, 22; information and computer

technologies (ICTs) 73; liberating forces 41; web-based courses 204, 205, 209, 219 investment: information technology 102–3; Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) 20 Jakupec, Viktor 1–8, 67–84, 259–67 King, Bruce 107–29 knowledge: accessibility 37, 39; commodification 64, 141, 264; content transfer 38; context of application 232; copyright 41; creation/validation 37–9; culturally concentrated 231, 232; disciplinary 187; dissemination 39–41, 76; economic growth 76–7; flexibility 75–7; globalisation 73, 217, 233, 261–3; hybrid fora 233; individual empowerment 42; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 73–4, 233; innovation 233; intellectual property 41, 141; know-how 241, 251; knowledge industries 232, 233; learning see learning; legitimation 227, 232, 236; mercantilism 239; ownership 41–2; public policy 263–7; social constructivism 176; socially distributed 231, 232, 233, 234, 236; specialised 232; studentcentred learning 176; usefulness 141; working knowledge 259–67; workplace 231–4, 253–4 knowledge workers: globalisation 21; human capital 151; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 21–2; Knowledge management and intellectual capital 245–8; postFordism 233–4 Kolb, D. 179 Laurillard, D. 184, 190 learners: ambivalence 235; constructing flexible learners

Index 275 219–22; customers 215, 216, 219–20; developing flexible learners 211–24; employers’ requirements 220; women see women learning: community/society 81; constructivism 215–16; Deakin University 94–5; disciplinary 187; empirical studies 184; experiential see experiential learning; flexible see flexible learning; flexible learners 211–24; knowledge see knowledge; lifelong see lifelong learning; mediated learning see technology-mediated learning; multiple objectives 189; new learning models 25–8, 125–6; off the job learning 193, 205; open see open learning; pedagogies 186–8; perceptions 189; postFordism 62, 133; self-directed see self-directed learning; shifting paradigm 33–43; situated cognition 242; student-centred see student-centred learning; teaching see teaching; terminology 227; University of British Columbia 94, 95; University of South Australia 59–62, 124–7; Wake Forest University 93–4, 95; women see women; workplace see workplace learning organisations: capacity building 250; flexibility 134, 138; flexible learning 141; human resource management 151; postFordism 133; redefining conflict 252; self-directed learning 27; stakeholders 134 leisure: technology 40 lifelong learning: ambiguities/contradictions 55; Deakin University 94, 98; economic growth 76; education and training 22–4, 79–80, 81, 140, 244; employment 23–4; flexibility 55, 76, 138, 143; higher education 79–80, 81; human resource development

139; skills acquisition 76; United Kingdom 137, 141 LloydsTSB Group: interactive video 201–2 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 208 McDonald’s: higher education 27 ‘McDonaldization’: globalisation 72 Macquarie University 110 management: intellectual capital 243–8; post-Fordism see postFordism; Taylorism 133, 134 management of education: administrative/technical infrastructure 116–17; Australia 112–13, 120, 122–7; business discourse 215; complexity 107; consultative relationships with stakeholders 115–16; enterprise culture 117–18; higher education institutions 108–20; institutional change 107–29; new organisational structures 114–15, 124–5; planning/quality improvement cycles 116; pressure for new teaching approaches 120–7; pressures for change 107; sociology 51–2; staff development see staff development; staff rewards 118–19; strategy dimensions 113–14 Manley, Michael 137 Manpower Services Commission 212 Marginson, Simon 109, 110 markets: competition see competition; financial see financial markets; market forces 109–10; niches see niche markets; service-based marketing 111 Marxism: neo-Marxism 131; postFordism 52 media: broadcasting 156–7, 194, 195; mass/individual 194; meaning 194–5; mediated learning see technology-mediated learning; new technology 216

276 Index Microsoft Corporation: MCP Online 204 Mobil Europe Lubricants 204 Monash University 110, 157, 163 Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI): financial markets 20 multinationals see transnational corporations national governments: globalisation 18 National Vocational Qualifications 182 NatWest Bank Plc 202 negotiation: accreditation 185; curriculum 142; student-centred learning 175 neo-liberalism: globalisation 72 neo-Marxism see Marxism neo-Schumpeterian: flexibility 131 neo-Smithian: flexibility 131 New Zealand: higher education 220, 264 niche markets: higher education 90; post-Fordism 131 Nickerson, R.S. 34, 44 North American Free trade Area (NAFTA): international policies 73 Nunan, Ted 47–66 open learning: core elements 152; economic rationalism 152; education and training 151; European Union 139; globalisation 141; higher education 138; meaning 152; OLA see Open Learning Australia; open universities see open universities; television 156–7; terminology 152, 212–13; Unesco 139; United Kingdom 212–13 Open Learning Australia (OLA): educational principles 157; equity groups 156–8; establishment 156–7; infrastructure support 117; women see women

open universites: economies of scale 104; India 218; United Kingdom 152, 212, 214 organisations: flexibility 140, 216, 226; learning see learning organisations; new structures 114–15, 124–5; subjectivity 228; workplace see workplace Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): education and training 4, 5; flexibility 31; higher education 25; human capital 151; ideological change 68; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 69, 260; information systems 91–2; international policies 73; policy migration 139 Oxford Brookes University 115 Pacific Western Bell Telephone Co.: higher education 27 partnerships: University of South Australia 127 Paul, Ross 30–46 pedagogies: academic authority 185–6; dilemmas 180–8; experiential see experiential learning; flexible learning 175–92; innovation 181; learning 186–8; rhetoric/reality 181–5; student-centred see studentcentred learning; theory/practice 188–90 performance indicators: higher education 35, 36, 81, 115 Peters, O 214–15 policies: flexible learning 130–45; forging policy 135–9; generic/polyvalent 138; globalisation 135, 139; international 73, 135; migration 135–6, 137–8, 139; public see public policy politics: flexibility 87; flexible learning 67–84; globalisation 70–7; governance 74; internationalisation 71; new

Index 277 economic order 87–8; skills acquisition 76; socio-political change 14–15, 107 post-Fordism: discourse 50; distance education 49, 215; education and training 140; enchanted workplace 47; fast capitalism see fast capitalism; flexibility 131, 133, 134, 216, 227; flexible learning 49; higher education 51; institutionalist school 52; knowledge workers 233–4; learning 62, 133; managerial approach 52; Marxism 52; niche markets 131; regulation school 52; technological change 55–8; workplace 47, 228 post-modernism: capacity building 250; ethics 236–7; flexibility 216; flexible learning 225–38 Potts, Martha 94 power: flexibility 58–9 Price Waterhouse: interactive video 202 privatisation 249 professional development see staff development Prudential Assurance 202 public policy: Australia 72, 88–9, 109–11, 112–13; deregulation see deregulation; flexibility 135; higher education 88–9; knowledge 263–7; New Zealand 220, 264; privatisation 249; United Kingdom 212–13 Queensland University of Technology 100 reflection: boundary setting 183; experiential learning 177–9, 181, 183, 186; pain 183 regulation school: flexibility 131; post-Fordism 52 Reid, Jan 120–1 retail sector: globalisation 18–19 Risky Business 203 Roadwork Guarding 201 Rolls Royce 204

Rover Group: higher education 26–7; Honda joint venture 25–6; Rover Employee Assisted Learning 26; Total Quality Improvement Plan 26; Warwick University 26 Rowan, Leonie 149–74 Royal Bank of Scotland 202 Sainsbury: technology-mediated learning 203 Schön, D.A 177–8 self-directed learning: course packages 53; learning organisations 27 social change: higher education 31–2, 80–1, 107; socio-political change 14–15, 107 sociology: flexibility 50, 51–2; management of education 51–2 sovereignty: globalisation 74, 75; higher education 30–46 Soviet Union: Cold War end 12; collapse 15 Specsavers 204 staff development: appropriate processes 119–20; Deakin University 102; distributed approach 101–2; expansion 217; information technology 100–2; integrated approach 101; parallel approach 101; strategic directions 119–20; University of South Australia 120, 124, 126 stakeholders: consultative relationships 115–16; learning organisations 134 Statistical Process Control (SPC) 201 strategic goals: information technology 93–9 student-centred learning: effectiveness 186–8; existing responsibilities 188; experiential learning 177; flexible learning 52–3, 175–7; focus of attention 176–7; information and computer technologies (ICTs) 177; innovation 188; isolation 188; justification 175–6;

278 Index knowledge 176; negotiation 175; scaffolding 186–7; stress 188 subjectivity: flexible learning 230–6; higher education 236; organisations 228; women 169; workplace 227–9 Sun Life 202 Sun Microsystems: technologymediated learning 203–4, 205 Tait, Alan 130–45 Taylorism: management 133, 134 teaching: cost of provision 120; Deakin University 94–5, 103; empirical studies 184; learning see learning; literature on flexibility 52–4; models 103; new approaches 120–7; University of British Columbia 94, 95; University of South Australia 59–62, 124–7; Wake Forest University 93–4, 95 technology: change 55–8, 136–7, 219; computer-mediated communication (CMC) 73, 75, 76, 77, 80, 233, 260; culture 34–5; flexibility 55–8; higher education 33–44; ICTs see information and computer technologies; IT see information technology; leisure 40; meaning 195; speeding up 40; time use 39; tourism 216 technology-mediated learning: Bank of America 205; benefits 208; CD- ROM 196, 197, 201, 204, 205, 209; choice of media 198; cost- effectiveness 194, 200, 207–8; delivery modes 195–6, 219; digital video disc (DVD) 204, 209; economic factors 207–8; evaluation 193, 201, 205–8; flexible learning examples 200–4; forms of interaction 199–200; HyperText Mark-up Language (HTML) 205; interaction 197–200; interactive video see interactive video; justin-time 206, 209; learning

context 199; lessons from experience 204–5; media/technologies defined 194–6; multimedia 194, 208; one-way communication 195, 196; product range 195–6; Sainsbury 203; social/cultural factors 206–7; streaming video 199, 205; Sun Microsystems 203–4, 205; symbol systems 198–9; training design 206; use 200–8; videoconferencing 196, 205; virtual reality 195, 198; Web-based courses 204, 205, 209, 219; workplace 193–210 telecommunications: computermediated communication (CMC) 73, 75, 76, 77, 80, 233, 260; globalisation 14, 21; information technology 243–4; Internet see Internet; transnational corporations 21 television: media 195; open learning 156–7 Terminal Risk 203 tertiary education see higher education Thorpe, Mary 175–92 tourism: globalisation 13–14; technology 216 training: education see education and training; workplace see workplace transnational corporations: globalisation 20; telecommunications 21 Ukraine: aid from Canada 15 unemployment: flexibility 132; globalisation 22–3 Unesco: distance education 139; open learning 139 United Kingdom: Allied Dunbar 202; Anglian Water 204; Barclays Bank Plc 202; British Aerospace Plc 204; British Gas Plc 204; British Steel Plc 204; British Telecommunications Plc 200–1; Coca Cola 204; Dearing Report

Index 279 (1997) 249; distance education 213; flexible learning 213; Ford Motor Co. 201; Fryer Report (1997) 249; Halifax Plc 202; lifelong learning 137, 141; LloydsTSB Group 201–2; Manpower Services Commission 212; Mobil Europe Lubricants 204; National Vocational Qualifications 182; NatWest Bank Plc 202; open learning 212–13; Open University 152, 212, 214; Oxford Brookes University 115; Prudential Assurance 202; public policy 212–13; Rolls Royce 204; Rover Group 25–7; Royal Bank of Scotland 202; Sainsbury 203; Specsavers 204; Sun Life 202; University of Newcastle 123; Vauxhall Motors 204; Warwick University 26; Workers Educational Association 181; Zenica Pharmaceuticals 204 United States: activity-based costing 245; Alverno College 115; Bank of America 205; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 208; Wake Forest see Wake Forest University university education see higher education University of British Columbia: information strategy 92; information systems 97; student numbers 93; teaching and learning 94, 95 University of Melbourne 123 University of New South Wales 123 University of Newcastle 123 University of South Australia: delivery methods 126–7; Division of Access and Academic Support 124, 125; flexible learning 59–62, 64; Flexible Learning Centre 124, 125; Graduate Qualities initiative 126; learning methods 125–6; organisational structures 124–5; partnerships and collaboration 127; planning 116; staff

development 120, 124, 126; teaching and learning 59–62, 124–7 University of Southern Queensland 123 Usher, Robin 225–38 Vauxhall Motors 204 videoconferencing: technologymediated learning 196, 205 videodisc see interactive video virtual reality: technology-mediated learning 195, 198 vocational education: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) 5; globalisation 138; National Vocational Qualifications 182 Wake Forest University: course templates 95, 96–7; information strategy 92; information systems 95–7; standardisation 95, 96, 97; student numbers 93; teaching and learning 93–4, 95 Warwick University: Rover Group 26 women: assessments 161–4; attending to difference 165–70; binaristic model 165; differences among women 167–9; differences between women and men 166–7; differences within women 169–70; diversity 149, 155, 165, 167–70; education and training 154–6; equity agenda 153–6; examinations 161–4; feminism see feminism; multiplicity and movement 166; Open Learning Australia (OLA) 150, 157, 158–65; particular fields of study 155; positive experiences 159–61; realities of lived experiences 155; responses to disadvantage 164; responses to open learning 159–65; rhizomatics 165, 169; subjectivity 169; unpaid work roles 182; workplace gender differentiation 153–4

280 Index Workers Educational Association 181 Working Party of the Committee of Scottish University Principals (1992) 121 workplace: accreditation 230; capacity building 248–52; cooperative education 242; culture 230; curriculum 231, 235; employers’ requirements 220; flexible learning 2–4, 193–210, 225–30; flexible learning examples 200–4; instrumentality/relevance 234; knowledge 231–4, 253–4; learning approaches 242–3; mediated learning see technologymediated learning; off the job

learning 193, 205; post-Fordism 47, 228; post-modernism 225–38; practice-based education 242; subjectivity 227–9; trainers as mediators 194; work-based learning 239–43; worker/learner approach 240–3 World Bank: international policies 73; policy migration 139 World Trade Organisation (WTO): international policies 73 World Wide Web see Internet Yetton and Associates 56–7, 89, 91, 101, 111, 123, 124 Zenica Pharmaceuticals 204